Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Nova Scotia moves against double taxation | Main | The Budget, Kyoto, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Lab »

Monday, March 28, 2005

Resistance is futile

As I write these thoughts I find myself at a crossroads. I am not sure whether to continue blogging or any other participation in political discourse for that matter.  "Resistance is futile" it was said on Star Trek. Maybe it is futile. Since becoming politically aware I had an avid interest in politics because, being young and naive, I thought that I could somehow change things. I was encouraged by the efforts made by political leaders such as Premier Mike Harris, Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, only to be disillusioned at the end that their efforts produced little or no improvement for my province and country.

While America continues what little remains of its culture war, conservative Canadians have lost this war some time ago and the odds of a resurgence are slim to none. Let's face it, this country is going down the garbage chute. Gay "marriage", high taxes, government red tape, "Big Brother" government tactics, abortion on demand, radical feminism, a confused self-destructive immigration policy, third-rate government health care, the erosion of property rights, affirmative action, an inexplicable devotion to the UN, an inadequate criminal justice system, school curricula increasingly hostile to family values, prevailing anti-Christian attitudes, smug neo-socialist media, judges with radical-left agendas, a national unity approach which favours Quebec at the expense of all other Canadians - these really are Canadian values. If they are not, why haven't we been able to change ANY of it? Think about it. Conservatives and libertarians can gather in their little cliques and produce as much written opinion as they would like but it's not changing a darn thing. The individual liberties of Canadians are being taken away gradually while they sit there complacent like a frog in increasingly hotter water.

I look to our neighbours to the south - one of the last bastions of liberty in western civilization. Europe, of course, has long ago exchanged liberty for the "progressive" social-democratic state. But what do I see? I see a disabled woman being put to death by the law of the land. Death by starvation. And they call that progressive.

Posted by Michael Dabioch on March 28, 2005 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8343e9a4953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Resistance is futile:

Comments

I could not have explained my opinion of the state of this country more accuratly. I just spent a week in Oregon (a blue state) and had a great time. Imagine walking into a store and buying $248.98 of goods and paying.......$248.98! WHERE WOULD MY $30.00 GO IN CANADA!! The roads in Oregon were fine , and the state parks would put my province B.C.'s to shame.

Posted by: Mallard | 2005-03-28 8:17:50 PM


As N. Spector doesn't post here anymore, I'll pretend I'm him: "Work harder and smarter".

Actually, I suggest you come on out west (if you aren't here already) and start working on the ole firewall.

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-03-28 8:40:51 PM


Canada = the United States = Canada = the United States

(in terms of overall trends, in the things which truly matter):

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003240.html

wake up you knee-jerk Ameriphiles / self-loathing Canada-haters! It's the same crap down there as up here, just a little slower, is all... same as in Tony Blair's Britain, or Australia - or Europe, for that matter...

everywhere, Western civilization is in decline, and fall...

if any of you think an independent Alberta / Western Canada, or an annexed-to-the-States Alberta / Western Canada would be any better, you're fooling yourselves...

Posted by: anon | 2005-03-28 9:17:41 PM


You are absolutely right, of course. I think most people don't value their freedom because they think it's a right rather than a responsibility. Our system of government rewards those who rob us of our freedom, but where is the motivation to change this system?

Posted by: John | 2005-03-28 9:20:36 PM


At LEAST the majority of Americans are willing to fight for their freedom and what is right. Slow motion decline is far better than a wholesale country-wide decline. I am looking into emmigration.

Posted by: Mallard | 2005-03-28 9:23:51 PM


see quotes from June Arunga - while pathetic statist Canadians pine for the latest handout from their political betters (don't inquire into who is paying for it) and have lost the liberty (not just economic, but political) their progenitors gave them, on the other side of the world, there is wisdom:

"Hernando De Soto’s Mystery of Capital offered the final piece in the puzzle, demonstrating how vital a comprehensive property law system is to awakening dead capital. The lack of a rule of law that upholds private property and provides a framework for enterprise is the greatest challenge that we face before we can ever reap significant gains from liberalizing our economy."

"It is harder to watch the law break the people, demoralize and impoverish them when one clearly understands what it would take to improve their lot. It is particularly uncomfortable in a global context to see what manner of intolerance repression can breed when we witness terrorism, and by the same token what manner of wealth, health and peace free societies enjoy." June Arunga.

More wisdom than the entire Fiberal party and N-dippers combined...

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/368.html

Hey Mallard, I emigrated to the US last year, and I can tell you life here is vastly better than that crap-hole Canada (nothwithstanding that I live in a blue state!). The fight is lost - get out and leave the nanny state morons to their ugly end (at least 1) you get to watch from a safe distance and 2) you won't be paying for it!).

After the sponsorship scandal was blithely accepted by the brain dead Canuck populace (excepting Quebec and Alta, the two provinces with some collective intelligence left), you gotta admit Canada'a on the express train to corrupt-statist-3rd rate socialist country- run by crooks and charlatans and populated by morons . Why stick around for that? Oh wait, its already there. And its cold.

Don't be a Mr. Dithers.

Posted by: IEscaped | 2005-03-28 10:29:40 PM


For all the baloney from the right wing crazies in America, claiming how "good" a friend they had in "Tony Blair", here is something from the BBC that is very disturbing. It would seem that the Blair government was not only given legal advice that they were embarking upon the criminal course of action in Iraq, but that the legal advisor resigned when Blair refused to properly present the correct advice to the public and to Parliament. Had Blair done so, he would have never succeeded in getting approval to invade Iraq.

It is revealing because this was a career civil servant and a senior lawyer that resigned rather than let a gross illegal act mislead the public of Britain.

I think for the first time, that it opens the case of "War Crimes" against Mr. Blair and his Cabinet. Please also take note that Robin Cook resigned rather than lie to Parliament.

Here is the Wilmshurst resignation letter.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 because she did not believe the war with Iraq was legal. Her letter was released by the Foreign Office to the BBC News website under the Freedom of Information Act.

"A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):"

"1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.

[The following italicised section was removed by the Foreign Office but later obtained by Channel 4 News]

My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)

I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

"2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally.

For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year.

I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation."

"3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness."

This amazing piece of information strongly supports the assertions of the Secretary General of the United Nations who has also terms the Anglo American invasion of Iraq "illegal". Now we have a senior lawyer working for many years for the British Government that has resigned over the issue of the illegality of the war.

Check it out for yourself at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377605.stm

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-28 11:29:13 PM


Or you could just ignore Joe Green's ramblings and go read Mark Steyn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/29/do2902.xml
"By contrast, Blair thought he could somehow square the activist liberationist Bush doctrine with the whole tired Security Council/ICC/Hague/EU circus. You can't. They're mutually incompatible. The problem with the entire concept of "international law" is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a finger on a Saddam Hussein. A "legalistic" regime of global relations confers an inviolable sovereignty not on countries or peoples but on every tinpot thug holding down the presidential palace. Bush and John Howard are under no illusions about this postmodern concept of sovereignty. Tony Blair is.

"International law? "I better call my lawyer." Better not to. The civilised world can't depend on the legal niceties of an ersatz global jurisdiction. If the Iraq war turns out to have been "illegal", that's just another bonus."

Posted by: TimR | 2005-03-29 12:06:32 AM


The logic seems simple. From the point of view of a small c conservative the Liberals are destroying the country. For the CPC to ride to the rescue it must win in Central Canada. To win there it must mirror the Liberals. With a CPC win what will be achieved? I suggest nothing to change the course we are on: more spending, more regulation, more interference in daily life, more social engineering,and more scandal. Remember the Mulroney PCs brought in gun control, the GST and gave miserable support to the coalition during Gulf War I.

The only workable solution to Liberal rule is to build a truly free and independant country in Alberta. It would quickly be both the richest per capita and least oppressive nation on earth. Alberta, no doubt pushed by Kyoto, should press on with the firewall to prepare for the day, hopefully soon, when we can be rid of Central Canada.


Posted by: M Shannon | 2005-03-29 12:11:00 AM


"(excepting Quebec and Alta, the two provinces with some collective intelligence left)"

Its natural to be disheartened sometimes. But you will almost certainly overreact. The above quote is a case in point - Saskatchewan voted for Conservative MP's at the same ratio as Alberta. The Libs lost a lot in Ontario, and what they didn't lose was due to their ability to inflame prejudiced sterotypes.

When you can only stay alive through demagoguery the future is by no means inevitably yours.

Fifty years ago the US was in much the same state as ours. The conservative movement there was facing odds that looked a lot worse. Not only do we have their example to draw from, we have their energy - an energy that wasn't there back then.

The more I look at how left-wing views and ideas are propagated and upheld the more I see, for the most part, a great facade. Prejudice, poor logic, group think, all those sorts of things are what they depend on.

I remember when I was younger and disappointed that the romantic days of knights and brave soldiers fighting for what was right was gone. (I doubt that those days ever existed) I was sad that I would never be involved in a fight for whats good.

Our fight is as hard as anything the Lancelots of history and legend had to fight. We have no clear-cut measure of success. But we are fighting for something just as important, and even more so.

It is a common and good thread of thought that honors soldiers for fighting to preserve freedom and prosperity for those who came after them. For every soldier that dies for those causes they become more precious. If we give up then we are squandering not only freedom and prosperity but also the lives of those who died for them. We must have courage equal to that of our soldiers - for we bear the same burden.

I predict that Terri's death will not be for nothing. People will create new laws - Terri Laws.

Posted by: Robbie | 2005-03-29 1:01:10 AM


As I've said before, be patient.

It took the African National Congress 46 years to topple Apartheid.

It took the Indian National Congress 60 years to end the British Raj.

Albertans must be patient to expect any change. In this day and age we're accustomed to rapid information and action. But when you're dealing with deeply entrenched corporate interests in Ontario, patience and tolerance must be a part of our arsenal, along with persistance.

The Ontarians have always been rich and won't give up easily. They treat all outsiders with contempt, especially non-white immigrants (I know this from personal experience - being white in a crowd of non-whites in Toronto, I was given special treatment...until the found out I was Albertan). The need the cheap labor to fill the worst jobs so white Ontarians can have the good ones. The non-white immigrants are pacified with things like "multiculturalism" but it cannot change the pattern of exploitation. The irony is that non-Ontarians are far more tolerant of non-whites because we too have been abused and exploited by white Ontario people. Life is good in Ontario - if you're white.

Alberta's resistance to Ontario must never end. We have 3 million people and a healthy standard of living to protect. Some may criticize the conservative politics of Alberta - I certainly do - and that is something we should solve. But our principle enemy is Ontario's greed. They knew Kyoto was a disaster in the making so they lobbied the Feds to exempt them and push the costs on Alberta. It's the second NEP - the mere fact that there was more than one is an atrocity. The gun registry was a scam designed to blame Albertans (and others) for Ontario's rising crime rate. There's no point in cooperating with them because we have always lost. Time to cut our losses and move on towards independence.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-29 4:20:51 AM


I know exactly how a lot of you feel......I feel like giving up the fight also and heading South......and I live in Alberta the most sane province in this confederation!!

The brainwashing of the masses up here is horrific to say the least and the only thing to save this country will either be our own 9-11 (will probably need a few) or an invasion by America to rescue us from the Socialist insanity that has been ruining this country for the last many decades!

It truly is sad........its a horrible thing to hate the country that you were born and raised in! I am at least very thankful I live in Alberta.......that helps offset the insanity that is regular Canada!

Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-03-29 5:35:52 AM


"This amazing piece of information strongly supports the assertions of the Secretary General of the United Nations who has also terms the Anglo American invasion of Iraq "illegal"."

Joe, you CANNOT make statements like this when there is NO resolution declaring the war ILLEGAL.

The corrupted UN stated that they did not sanction the war, which means that they "DO NOT SUPPORT IT'. No where was it declared Illegal.

Get your FACTS STRAIGHT. Saddam was in violation of resolutions, and therefore what he did was ILLEGAL, therefore the coalition had every right to invade.

Posted by: rob | 2005-03-29 6:58:56 AM


rob,

While I am loathe to ever agree with anything that Joe says...he is correct that Kofi stated at a news conference (I believe prior to the election) that HE believes that the invasion was illegal.

While that has no bearing on anything, Joe is correct in that point only.

Posted by: Jay | 2005-03-29 7:10:44 AM


Rob:

In Joe Green's world, the Secretary-General of the UN is an all-knowing, almighty World Emperor whose very word is canon law. If Annan says it was illegal, therefore Joe believes it was illegal. Talk about uncritical.

You're correct - there was no UN sanction supporting the war, and none against it. It is a testament to the shortcomings of the UN Organization. The Five Powers were supposed to govern the post-war world together, but it looks like divisions still persist a decade after the Cold War ended. So long as they have veto power over the Security Council, they will be able to act as they see fit whether Annan or whoever succeeds him believes.

Annan can rant and rave against it whenever he receives yet another honorary degree at yet another commencement address, but it has no more basis than those responding to a blog. Nuff said.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-29 7:12:59 AM


W..W..Wait a minute! What the hell is all this pessimism about? Sure Canada has problemes, but those same problemes exist south of the border, as well. The Schiavo case is, after all, an American story, so why rag on Canada?

If you want to reinvigorate the country, then you have to reinvigorate the values upon which it is based.

So how many Christian readers here went to Easter Mass, linked up with their families and shared a meal? How many Jewish readers celebrated passover by doing likewise?

We decry the decline of Judeo-Christian values, and then react by scouring the horizon in the hope some external agent will appear to reignite them. To continue with the "resistance is futile" theme; a Seven-of-Nine, perhaps?

In your blonde busty dreams!

We, the rank and file Canadians, are the vehicles for these values. It is up to us, and us alone, to make sure they're reinforced, renewed and refreshed. The current juncture, instead of being portrayed as *disastrous*, CAN be viewed as a golden opportunity to re-interpret and reinvigorate not just the country's moral underpinnings, but its historical narrative, as well.

The first step starts with oursevles. We can't steer the country in any meaningful direction unless our own moral ambiguitites and anomie are put to rest.

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-03-29 7:17:29 AM


Mr Dabioch ... Thanks for your insightful and courageous remarks. I may not dot all your “i’s” and cross all your “t’s”, but by and large you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

It has taken me a few days to get a read on everything that transpired at the Conservative convention, and my verdict is that in order to get elected, the so-called “Conservatives” have now become Liberal poseurs. Debate has all but been stifled within Tory ranks, and the injunction “do not rock the boat” (which is being sold as high minded and principled) ... is an insult to those of us who know only too damn well that a wholesale abandonment of principle is underway.

If there is a new definition of what it means to be Conservative ... let’s hear it. Why should it be a big secret? I’ll tell you why ... because if there is a redefinition that is in the works it has zero to do with a value shift that has emerged from grass root consensus, and everything to do with a leadership that has become defeatist even as it trumpets a “winning strategy”. Apparently when in Trudeaupia, Tories are expected to do-as-Trudeaupians-do.

Let’s face it folks, the Tories are now little more than “blue Liberals”.

Finally the great Conservative revolution has come full circle, and it’s ended up on its knees, knocking on the door of Ottawa as it waves a white flag. The Tories now have no intention of seriously confronting the status quo, let alone seeking to enact Conservative policies that would lead to greater personal freedom for all and a reduction in the government interference that impacts every facet of our lives. Anyone who thinks this is a clever gambit and when /if the Tories get elected, Steve and the boys are suddenly going to emerge in their true colours, should consider moving somewhere over the rainbow.

This so-called “winning strategy” hatched out of desperation, is a tragic and misguided error. It risks relegating the Conservative Party to the role of waiter at the Liberal head table for time immemorial.

If this country is ever to espouse the Conservative values that many of us hold dear, it requires a Tory leadership with the vision and the guts to provide uncompromising direction. It requires leadership that isn’t afraid to state positions that it knows to be correct, even if not currently wildly popular. By doing this the country will see that a genuine alternative exists, and will have no doubt that the act of voting Conservative will actually mean something substantive, rather than yet another version of same-old, same-old.

In the States we continue to see a burgeoning right wing, fearless and visionary. In Europe we see a dying socialist/statist dream and the prospect social mayhem around the corner. In a matter of years the playing out of these dual realities will be a factor in moving the Canadian public further to the right, and when that happens, where will the Tories be? A discredited and demoralized force, temporarily ensconced on the tarnished throne of King Dithers? Quite possibly.

No wonder Belinda Stronach is enjoying wide appeal. When ideas and values give way to hype and glitz, blonde lightweights always look like heavyweight contenders in the eyes of the deluded.

How myopic are we going to get before we finally go blind altogether?

Posted by: raskolnikov aka Aidan | 2005-03-29 9:32:27 AM


Thanks for your thoughtful comments, John - you're clearly a "glass half full" guy and a nice counterbalance to we "glass half empty" types. Unfortunately, your call to "reinforce renew and refresh" our traditional values seems to me to be of a kind with the Normster's infamous admonition to we conservatives to "work harder and smarter".

I'm afraid I'm increasingly of the "resistance is futile" mindset for the reasons so well set out by Mr. Dabioch. It seems not a day goes by without some reinforcement - today's example being the news on the Corpse this morning about how certain witnesses to the Gomery PUBLIC inquiry (including Guite) are petitioning to have their testimony heard in camera! (I guess, in keeping with recent trends, we'll have to change the definition of "public" to include "private"). The Corpse report went on to say how annoyed Quebecers are about these petitions, since the GI is the number one rated show in Quebec these days. It would seem Quebecs are increasingly angered by further revelations as to the depths to which the Lieberals plunged in their ostensible attempt to bribe Quebec into staying.

So Quebecers angered at the Lieberals bodes well for the CPC, non? Well, not if the polls are to be believed - the biggest political scandal in the Western hemisphere in decades appears likely to cause all of the other political parties to gain support in Quebec, save the CPC. Although it may be possible to for the CPC to win an election without Quebec, you cannot govern this country and make the sort of fundamental changes necessary to reverse the malaise without it.

So, John, while I agree with many of your sentiments, forgive me if I think the "reinforcing, renewing and refreshing" we should be focused on is of the provincial powers enshrined in the Canadian constitution. Vive l'Alberta libre!

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-03-29 9:59:01 AM


M Shannon wrote:

"The logic seems simple. From the point of view of a small c conservative the Liberals are destroying the country."

From the point of view of the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Libertarians are the least popular political party in Canada. And from the point of view of BOTH the Government Party and the Official Opposition Party, the fascist wing of the American Republican Party that obtained 1,949 votes from all of Canada is PROOF that they are not wanted and not needed in our Country. Even the Marxists out polled them, the Communists out polled them and the Christian fundamentalists out polled them by a factor OF AT LEAST four to one.

You know what it tells me??? It tells me "Yankee Go Home!"

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 10:34:27 AM


firewalls r'us wrote:

"So, John, while I agree with many of your sentiments, forgive me if I think the "reinforcing, renewing and refreshing" we should be focused on is of the provincial powers enshrined in the Canadian constitution. Vive l'Alberta libre!"

Separtism is dying in Canada. The Quebec variety and the Alberta variety. Quebec Bloc (i.e. separtists) should have far fewer seats then they get because of distortions produced by "first past the post" elections. In Alberta, the best that the separtists ever did was to elect Gordon Kessler in a small rural and backward riding.

Even he disappeared years ago.

My answer to to firewalls 'r us is the same answer that Canada gave to Charles De Gaulle. You are not welcome. Go Home. Canada is already free. We do not need De Gaulles brand of freedom and we do not need Mr. Bush's brand of "Freedumb".

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 10:43:37 AM


Albertanator wrote:

"I know exactly how a lot of you feel......I feel like giving up the fight also and heading South......and I live in Alberta the most sane province in this confederation!!"

Please don't let us stand in the way of your pursuit of happiness. Follow your dream. And leave us in Peace.

Bye Bye.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 10:47:33 AM


Red-Green spouts his anti-Americanism, as before.

All together:


God Bless America,

God bless George Bush.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-29 10:49:12 AM


The America of the Patriot Act, Gitmo torture policies, illegal pre-emptive wars, de-facto military draft by "stop loss", scripted "townhall" dog and pony politics, infotainment media and anti-marriage constitutional amendments is not what I would call a "bastion of liberty".

But by all means, move if you prefer Bush's "Daddy State" to Peace, Order and Good Government...

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-03-29 10:57:37 AM


Hermit and Red-Green are clones.


God bless America,

God bless George Bush.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-29 11:40:04 AM


FirewallsRus, chin up!

The Canadian Left is reduced to living off the capital of the 60's. That capital will soon be exhausted.

SOME of Harper's positions, following the conference, are a last-ditch attempt, and a mistaken one, to pander to that capital. But Harper's *moderation*, though, is not as fatal as it first appears.

Unless Conservatives take power they will remain unable to stop the moral degradation that now undermines our whole society. We're fighting against an enormous construct propagated by misguided academics under the guise of "progressivism". This constrct now extends to most mainstream media and dominates, as a kind of secular religion, the minds of those who've abandoned the traditional Judeo-Christian moral framework. Harper has no choice but to navigate these waters. That's politics

Went home for Easter, and while there had a long conversation with my 14 year-old nephew, who's quite a clever fellow. Asked him what be'd been doing lately in school.
He replied that his grade 9 teacher had encouraged him to write an essay on how the Apollo moon-landings had been faked.....on a sound-stage in Area 51. "He likes to makes us think", said my nephew! "Did you have any other options as an essay subject", I enquired?
"Yes", he replied. "I could have written an essay on how evil George Bush is, but chose not to."

I know his teacher, went to school with him, he's a graduate of a very respectable Canadian university

When things get this stupd there's nowhere to go but up

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-03-29 12:26:39 PM


John Palubiski,

Methinks your clever nephew might just know which of his uncle's legs to pull...

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-03-29 2:02:32 PM


Consider this:

"In Joe Green's world, the Secretary-General of the UN is an all-knowing, almighty World Emperor whose very word is canon law. If Annan says it was illegal, therefore Joe believes it was illegal. Talk about uncritical."

You see Scott, in Joe Green's world, an independent Committee appointed by the Secretary General has cleared him of ALL WRONG DOING in the "Oil for Food Program". To use Mr. Volcker's words the committee found "no evidence" of the Secretary General using any inappropriate influence in the award of any contracts, including the one that went to the company for which the Mr. Annan's son worked for.

Now I suppose that the right wing crazies are going to pull out all the best Joe McCarthy lines and start howling that Paul Volcker was not really appointed by Ronald Reagan to head up the US Federal Reserve, and that he was always a card carrying undercover lefty in league with Power Corporation.

Come on Scott, make my day. Tell us how corrupt Mr. Volcker actually is and that he too was on Saddam's payroll.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 2:02:33 PM


Now let's get Mr. Volcker to work on all the missing billions from the Iraq reconstruction budget...

oh, and get him to look into all the American companies that profited from Iraqi oil smuggling, outside the OFF program.

Funny how no one on th eright likes to talk about those little oversights...

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-03-29 2:15:54 PM


What's the difference? Canada's anti-terrorism act is more draconion than GWB's PA. Cotler is expanding it to include Canucks as well as immigrants. Look for ankle bracelets coming to a neighbourhood near you.The Cdn gov't sends its citizens to Syria to be tortured. When Quebec approves, (Kosovo; the RCAF dropped more smart bomb munitions on Christian Serbs, in support of OBL's KLA Albanian boys, than any other nation except the US)Canada enthusiatically participates in pre-emptive wars. Oh and Task Force 151, Canucks riding shotgun for the USS JFK were ONLY nabbing OBL's boys in the Persian Gulf (wink, wink...nod, nod). The black robes here don't bother with constitutional amendments. Hell they just read in rights. GWB and PMPM agree on open borders, and a myriad of other common goals. They drive down wages with an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Toronto has an estimated 100,000 ii's working in construction. Import terrorism, HIV and tuberculosis; destroy welfare and healthcare and increase crime all to put a few more dollars in the pockets of their trans-national corporate buddies.

It matters not which side of the long undefended you reside, for Canada is simply a tail on the Yankee kite.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-03-29 2:27:32 PM


Hermie, you've got keep up on the reading - ya look like a doofus when you post out of ignorance:

(Mark Steyn in the Western Standard)

"During the Iraq war, for example, I mentioned en passant that Power Corp. is the biggest shareholder in TotalFinaElf, the western corporation closest to Saddam Hussein (it has since changed its name to the Total Group). Total had secured development rights to 25 per cent of Iraq’s oil reserves, a transformative deal that would catapult the company from a second-rank player into the big leagues with Exxon and British Petroleum. For a year, the antiwar crowd had told us it was “all about oil”--that the only reason Iraq was being “liberated” was so Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the gang could annex in perpetuity the second biggest oil reserves in the world. But, if it was all about oil, then the fact--fact--is that the only Western leader with a direct stake in the issue was not the Texas oilpatch stooge in Washington, but Jean Chrétien: his daughter, his son-in-law and his grandchildren stood to be massively enriched by the Total-Saddam agreement. It depended on two factors: Saddam remaining in power, and the feeble UN sanctions being either weakened into meaninglessness or quietly dropped. M. Chrétien may have refused to join the Iraq war on “principle,” but fortunately his principles happened to coincide with the business interests of both TotalFinaElf and the Baath party."

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-03-29 2:31:44 PM


Yea ok Joe,

He's as full of it as you are:

"Still, the report raised questions about when the secretary-general learned about the December 1998 contract to the Swiss firm, Cotecna Inspection S.A., and strongly criticized the destruction of documents by his former chief of staff that could have shed light on the oil-for-food scandal in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Posted by: rob | 2005-03-29 3:27:29 PM


Rob posted this:

"Still, the report raised questions about when the secretary-general learned about the December 1998 contract to the Swiss firm, Cotecna Inspection S.A., and strongly criticized the destruction of documents by his former chief of staff that could have shed light on the oil-for-food scandal in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Rob is a liar and a propagandist. The right wing press keeps dredging up allegations that have been disproven and dismissed by the Committee. The Secretary General has to AGAIN refute charges against other UN staff members.

I guess that is what happens in "neocon" brains when they get fried and the left lobe is no longer connected to the right lobe. You get a persistent vegetative state.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 4:48:18 PM


Ha,

Joe, again your twist to the left failed to accept reality. If you notice the quotation marks, that was for a reason.

http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_OIL_FOR_FOOD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-03-29-04-31-02

I intentionally left the link out so you could bury yourself again.

Posted by: rob | 2005-03-29 6:02:33 PM


Mr Dabioch ... Thanks for your insightful and courageous remarks. I may not dot all your “i’s” and cross all your “t’s”, but by and large you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

It has taken me a few days to get a read on everything that transpired at the Conservative convention, and my verdict is that in order to get elected, the so-called “Conservatives” have now become Liberal poseurs. Debate has all but been stifled within Tory ranks, and the injunction “do not rock the boat” (which is being sold as high minded and principled) ... is an insult to those of us who know only too damn well that a wholesale abandonment of principle is underway.

If there is a new definition of what it means to be Conservative ... let’s hear it. Why should it be a big secret? I’ll tell you why ... because if there is a redefinition that is in the works it has zero to do with a value shift that has emerged from grass root consensus, and everything to do with a leadership that has become defeatist even as it trumpets a “winning strategy”. Apparently when in Trudeaupia, Tories are expected to do-as-Trudeaupians-do.

Let’s face it folks, the Tories are now little more than “blue Liberals”.

Finally the great Conservative revolution has come full circle, and it’s ended up on its knees, knocking on the door of Ottawa as it waves a white flag. The Tories now have no intention of seriously confronting the status quo, let alone seeking to enact Conservative policies that would lead to greater personal freedom for all and a reduction in the government interference that impacts every facet of our lives. Anyone who thinks this is a clever gambit and when /if the Tories get elected, Steve and the boys are suddenly going to emerge in their true colours, should consider moving somewhere over the rainbow.

This so-called “winning strategy” hatched out of desperation, is a tragic and misguided error. It risks relegating the Conservative Party to the role of waiter at the Liberal head table for time immemorial.

If this country is ever to espouse the Conservative values that many of us hold dear, it requires a Tory leadership with the vision and the guts to provide uncompromising direction. It requires leadership that isn’t afraid to state positions that it knows to be correct, even if not currently wildly popular. By doing this the country will see that a genuine alternative exists, and will have no doubt that the act of voting Conservative will actually mean something substantive, rather than yet another version of same-old, same-old.

In the States we continue to see a burgeoning right wing, fearless and visionary. In Europe we see a dying socialist/statist dream and the prospect of social mayhem around the corner. In a matter of years the playing out of these dual realities will be a factor in moving the Canadian public further to the right, and when that happens, where will the Tories be? A discredited and demoralized force, temporarily ensconced on the tarnished throne of King Dithers? Quite possibly.

No wonder Belinda Stronach is enjoying wide appeal. When ideas and values give way to hype and glitz, blonde lightweights always look like heavyweight contenders in the eyes of the deluded.

How myopic are we going to get before we finally go blind altogether?

Posted by: raskolnikov aka Aidan | 2005-03-29 10:38:25 PM


I tried to post the comment below earlier today and thought I had been unsuccessful due to prolonged lag time. I now see the earlier post went through - so apologies for a secong edition.

Posted by: raskolnikov | 2005-03-29 10:41:24 PM


Canadians are really getting tired of Rob the Separtist smearing innocent people who do not agree with him, such as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.

And I am tired of this same shit from the right. In particular I am sick and tired of corrupt Mulroney appointees continuing their attacks upon the United Nations and its Secretary General AFTER "all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men" failed to find ANY EVIDENCE of wrong doing by Mr. Annan.

I of course refer to the inept and incompetent former head of CSIS, Reid Morton, a Mulroney appointee who ran the Canadian branch of the CIA's murder incorporated from 1987 t0 1991. This was the critical time period where CSIS destroyed evidence required for the RCMP investigation into the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history where Vancouver based terrorists on the CIA payroll blew up an Air India flight killing all 329 Canadians and other nationals on board.

I am flabbergasted that Paul Volcker would have been scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for "investigators". Now we find there is a smoking gun leading directly to the First Bush White House in the person of this "agent".

I think that the Canadian Public should be DEMANDING a full and complete INVESTIGATION and INQUIRY as to how in the hell CSIS DESTROYED EVIDENCE required to help the RCMP investigate the worst act of terrorism in Canadian history. I think that we need to get to the bottom of the fact that CSIS and its fearless "neocon" leader was up to his ass in planning these mass murders.

And I think that the investigation should not stop even if arrest warrents are issued for Brian Mulroney and George Bush I, who were up to their ass in criminal activity around the globe.

When Canadian taxpayers fund secret organizations like CSIS we need to be assured that they are not engaged in major crimes around the globe. Right now, given the background and connections of Reid Morden, and the aftermath of the Air India disaster that took place on Brian Mulroney's watch, we have no confidence AT ALL that the terrorist acts in fact were NOT committed by agents of the Government of Canada.

Remember that spies live outside the law. Like Howard Hunt, they commit serious crimes at the drop of the hat. Like Hal Banks they murder and maim with impunity, and mass murder does not concern or bother them.

We need to find out what role Reid Morden played in the Air India tragedy, what role he had in comitting this criminal act, and what role he is now playing in smearing the United Nations.

Im surprised at Mr. Volcker who should have hired a respectable police officer or other members of the RCMP to investigate these corrupt practices at the United Nations. Instead he turned to the spooks and the criminals in the security services.

So how much money was Saddam kicking back to the Carlyle Group and the Bin Laudin Group from this Oil for Food Program????

We know, FOR CERTAIN that Dick Cheney was involved up to his ass doing business illegally with Saddam during the Clinton Presidency when it was illegal for him to be doing that.

This is an American "neocon" smokescreen to cover up crimes in the US by the Cheney - Rumsfeld - Wolfwitz - Perle "axis of evil". No wonder they want to send Bolton to the UN to destroy it and all the evidence of American complicity in these crimes against the people of Iraq, and for all the evidence where the CIA and MI5 were bugging the United Nations offices.

What a bunch of whores!

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 11:41:55 PM


raskolnikov aka Aidan opined:

"Let’s face it folks, the Tories are now little more than “blue Liberals”."

Its a first step for the Tories to regain their historic position.

The second step is to have another convention and decide that a better name for their party is the "Progressive Conservative Party of Canada".

A third step would be to purge the "neocons" out of the new PC party and get rid of the "fifth columnists" aka facist American Republicans. That includes the 1,949 Libertarians in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

Who knows, when they actually focus in on genuine Canadian values, they might even win an election.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-29 11:53:40 PM


Ignore Joe, ignore Joe, ignore Joe, ignore Joe, ignore Joe, (altogether now) ignore Joe, ignore Joe (kinda catchy, don't ya think?), ignore Joe, ignore Joe, ignore Joe (do ya get my drift?)ignore Joe ad infinitum

Posted by: Jack | 2005-03-30 12:35:13 AM


1. Firstly, things are not futile. The Canadian electorate is eager for change. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives with ideas as exciting as the Reform Party circa 1996.

This is bound to improve now that the Conservatives are a functioning, stable political party with a convention-tested policy statement and constitution.

2, Even if Canada is futile, get ready to separate. Think about what needs to be done and do it. Get a referendum on a ballot.

3. Finally, Even if Canada and Alberta are both futile efforts now, hope is on the way. Ghoulish though it may be, the Roe Effect* is coming to a Canadian electorate near you in 2008, 16 years behind the US. If we can only keep sane Canadians inside the border until then...

*http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006200

Posted by: Pete E | 2005-03-30 12:38:24 AM


When speaking of resistance, it's important to define our terms clearly.

Conservative resistance would be getting a better hearing in the public arena, and Steve Harper may not have needed to move so far in the direction of appeasement, if extremist and crackpot views had been dealt with firmly from the get go.

Anti-bilingual fanatics, anti-emigration agitators, anti-abortion and anti-gay crusaders ... and others with mono-minded agendas have unfortunately created the impression in the minds of a good many Canadians that Conservatism equals narrow minded intolerance.

It's fine to have a strong moral position on any number of these issues, but in a democracy (especially in a party representing greater freedom for all from government strictures), it's vitally important that the party is capable of being inclusive of all citizens without selling out its core values and principles.

The gay marriage issue has been one of the most difficult issues the party has faced in a long time. In a free society it is plainly wrong to ostracize people for their sexual orientation ... period. Gays are rightly protected under law and given due respect as citizens. Having said that, the issue of gay marriage is indeed a legitimate target for debate, provided the discussion doesn't veer in the direction of hate mongering and moral crusading. Gay Rights Parades are also legitimate targets because the politics behind the costumes and colorful floats is often rabidly anti-Conservative. Tories shouldn't shirk from taking on radical aspects of the Gay Rights Movement and gay marriage itself, but never with the intent of debasing or insulting our fellow citizens who happen to be gay. It's a fine balance, but a crucially important one.

In my opinion, the above approaches simply reflect common decency and a respect for diversity and don't involve selling out core party principles. However, the Conservative position on many of these issues has never been clearly stated in a manner that is free of the taint of closeted bigotry - at least in the minds of the hearers. This is a communication problem and the Tories need some smart PR people capable of getting out the right message, in the right way and in a timely fashion.

If the Tory election campaign was anything to go by I'm wondering what the odds are of ever getting the message on target. I literally sat cringing in my seat as the same weak ad was played over and over again, and watched with dismay as Steve Harper did his best imitation of a tailor's dummy ... waiting ... God bless him, for the Liberal house to fall.

Bottom line, I feel that we could have been spared any major capitulation if our message had been better formulated and delivered in a smart package, designed for the unique multi-cultural society in which we now live.

Here's hoping ...

Posted by: raskolnikov | 2005-03-30 1:50:16 AM


"The America of the Patriot Act, Gitmo torture policies, illegal pre-emptive wars, de-facto military draft by "stop loss", scripted "townhall" dog and pony politics, infotainment media and anti-marriage constitutional amendments is not what I would call a "bastion of liberty"."

You wouldn't know the difference. In 1970, Pierre the Terrible suspeneded ALL human rights to go after some "terrorists" but President Bush, with the support of Congress, allowed some additional powers on a temprorary basis to go after real terrorists. An inconvenience at best.

I agree with maz2

God Bless America

God Bless President Bush

After all, what has President Bush done to Alberta? Nothing. He's been fair with us. Even the Mad Cow crisis was not his doing, or that of his administration - it was caused by long-established policies that date back decades, and the private R_CALF group's efforts to keep the ban in place.

What has Paul Trillionaire done to us? He's lied to us, patronized, and ignored our interests to the point where we have to deal with the US ourselves. I guess we can thank him for forcing us to see the light and grow up. We can handle our own affairs from here - now take your stupid flag back.

It would be great if President Bush would seal his place in American history by being the first President since Eisenhower to admit a state into the Union: The Commonwealth of Alberta.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-30 7:31:41 AM


Scott the Separtist lied when he wrote this:

"After all, what has President Bush done to Alberta? Nothing. He's been fair with us. Even the Mad Cow crisis was not his doing, or that of his administration - it was caused by long-established policies that date back decades, and the private R_CALF group's efforts to keep the ban in place."

The American Government closed the US-Canada border when a case of BSE was discovered in Alberta. The practice of quarantine is a long and established one and it exists to protect populations and industries from disease and infection. The US Government was FULLY justified in closing the border, and indeed keeping it closed for the next seven to ten years until this outbreak of BSE has run its course in Canada.

Period.

The real fault lies with the Ralph Klein Government. They in fact are criminally responsible because they are the "regulators" of the rendering plants, the environment, and the cattle industry. The Canadian Federal Government is responsible for food inspections for exports.

The Federal Government should SHUT DOWN Alberta's infected cattle ranching business UNTIL it can be completely decontaminated of BSE and other diseases. Period.

However, that should NOT harm other Canadian Provinces where there is NO BSE cases.

The movement of cattle IN or OUT of Alberta should be stopped completely by the Federal Government, and the international movement of cattle from disease free Provinces should be resumed.

Now, the facts of what caused the outbreak are simply enough. The Conservative Ralph Klein government, after being warned that inadequate control over the use of products from rendering plants constituted a health hazard, never the less persisted with their "laisse faire" mentality and ignored the fact that some cattle producers were feeding beef renderings to beef cattle. That is how the BSE outbreak came about.

That is the actual fact of BSE. The "Canadian" BSE outbreak actually is an "Alberta" BSE outbreak.

The Feds should quarantine Alberta, seal off the Province's borders from movement of cattle and rendering products, and it should financially support farmers damaged by the Alberta outbreak, and move to re-establish international trade in beef WITHOUT ALBERTA.

As for the farmers and ranchers of Alberta, its the Province's negligence that brought this situation about since Ralph Klein's government wanted to make deep cuts in the budgets of testing labs in Alberta. The infected animal from the first case in fact sat in a freezer for months before the tests were actually conducted, letting the problem grow even worse and unchecked.

Finally, Klein's Government last year ran up a $3B surplus and because of high oil prices continues to run the largest surplus budgets in Canada. So the Province does not lack the means to pay for its own mistakes.

If the feds apply a $1B program to help farmers and ranchers in Canada, those funds SHOULD NOT be used inside Alberta. Alberta is not an "innocent party" the way other provinces like Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Ontario or BC are innocent provinces. This BSE disaster is a "Made in Alberta" problem brought about by the negligence of the Conservative Ralph Klein Government. There certainly is fiscal capacity for Alberta to pay for its own mistakes. And it should.

I object to federal tax monies being used to bail Ralph Klein's sorry ass out of this BSE mess that his negligence created in the first place.

Finally, the Americans are wrong in their refusal to label the "country of origin" in beef production. Beef, like California oranges, is not an "integrated industry" as the "neocons" want to pretend that it is. It was and it remains a "local" agricultural pursuit.

Besides, for "laisse faire capitalists", the "customer is always right". If the Japanese want to test every animal slaughtered, then that is what should be provided, fairly and uniformly, by the market players in Alberta that never tire of telling us how competitive they are.

So give the customers what they want. And if integrated American multinational companies that operate packing plants in Canada with illegal immigrants and latent terrorists; do not like it, then too bad, so sad, but that is what the customer should get.

When Ralph misappropriated monies originally earmarked to help farmers and ranchers, and it ended up in the bank accounts of American multinational companies, he compounded the mistakes he originally made by refusing to properly regulate rendering plants in Alberta.

Why is it that when crooked Canadian politicians take kick backs from American multinational companies in Alberta, its considered "business as usual", but when businessmen from other parts of the world take kickbacks in the UN Oil for Food Program its regarded by Americans as "corruption"?

Why double standard? Because American businessmen themselves are hypocrites.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-30 8:07:48 AM


"The Feds should quarantine Alberta, seal off the Province's borders from movement of cattle and rendering products, and it should financially support farmers damaged by the Alberta outbreak, and move to re-establish international trade in beef WITHOUT ALBERTA."

And you claim to be a proud Albertan?

Alberta has done more than the Feebs have on this issue. Governor Klein was in Washington within hours to negotiate directly with VP Cheney (Martin has to wait).

We'll do this ourselves - we have to - because it doesn't matter to the rich in the East. If it was auto-parts, this would receive the highest priority. But because it's in "r*dn*ck" Alberta (forgive the racial stereotype - it's the Easterners view of us) it doesn't matter. Not enough votes out there for them to matter. Well screw them.

Governor Klein isn't perfect but he's way ahead of the competition - he's the only leader able to both protect our economy and stand up to the Feds. Today's Alberta Liberal leader would sell us out to the feds faster than a second NEP could be imposed. The NDP leader would ruin our economy with his so-called social improvements and ruinously high taxes that drive business away.

Even I don't love the Governor, but he's the only thing standing between me and unemployment and homelessness.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-30 8:46:02 AM


Wow, amazing, dead-on analysis of the BSE crisis, J-oh. 'Cept the first mad-cow was raised on a farm in Saskatchewan.

I'll go back to ignoring you now.

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-03-30 8:50:01 AM


Scott the Separtist is all screwed up when he askes:

"And you claim to be a proud Albertan?"

I am a proud Canadian living in Alberta. Being Canadian means to accept the values of hard work and honesty, and of being responsible for what happens in your community.

The BSE thing should have never happened. But it did because of serious errors in Alberta by the Klein Government that resulted in a total breakdown of regulation and control over rendering plants and the use of these byproducts in beef production.

If you value fairness, you have to also be prepared to belly up to the bar and pay the bill when its your problem. I do not lie and cheat and steal the way you try here by blaming Saskatchewan for an Alberta rendering plant where the Canadian and American authorities have traced the actual problem.

The BSE thing was screwed up by the Province of Alberta, and as an Alberta taxpayer I have to shoulder the costs that Ralph brought to this industry through his negligence. I am prepared to pay my fair share.

And I also am going to work very hard to replace inept, incompetent and lazy Conservative politicans in the Provincial Legislature that all helped Ralph precipitate this crisis on Alberta ranches and farms.

Face Facts! Conservatives caused BSE!


Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-30 9:14:22 AM


Raskolnikov, you comments on gay rights and gay marriage are dead on.

The way you've distinguished between basic human rights and the "rights" promoted by the gay agenda crowd is impressive.

As for gay prode parades; their agenda is now merely one of denigration of The West. They mock and satirise one of the few civiliations, from the Greeks on downwards, that has given gays a space of their own. Joyous bopping
twits gleefully shooting themselves in the foot......and thinking it's all soooo cool.

Ever heard of a *gay pride* parade in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Yemen? I wonder why. These places are known to be very gay friendly, tourist destinations, par excellence!

Should I page Svend Robinson and ask him?

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-03-30 12:24:11 PM


Sometimes decent people have to draw a line in the sand. Joe Borowsky did that as an NDP member over abortion which he clearly did not support.

If you want to engage the public in a debate over "gay marriage", and in particular with respect to the civil legislation that should govern in society, a good starting point would be to begin by defining a "civil union" as a "partnership" and which can be broadly based upon common law principles which we inherently recognize as existing between married spouses, but which also apply in non-sexual contexts to family members in business relationships, and between men and women in "common law" relationships that we "deem" to be in a "partnership".

There are a whole host of issues from life insurance to pensions, from incomes and expenses, to ownership and disposal of assets that are held jointly in such relationships. We should apply a common set of legal standards to all of these relationships that may be long term, but which can be dessolved by mutual agreement by the partners.

That approach would cover both married couples, common law couples, gays, lesbian and homosexual couples and it should be an approach that is uniform and impartial with respect to gender, sexual orientation, or any other modern notion of human rights. These in fact are merely "updates" to a long pattern of "common law" relationships dating back to the mists of time.

Then we need to address a second question which is "freedom of religion" which is a primary matter of human rights. Some religions believe that a "union" between a "man" and a "woman" (what God has put together, let no man put asunder) is not merely a "partnership" but indeed is a "sacrament", a "partnership" that is blessed by God Himself, which is a grace to live faithfully in a certain way (till death due you part). Clearly the secular state cannot do what the Chinese Communists try to do in China with their "Catholic Church" and try to "bless marriages", indeed in Canada such sacraments remain the sole domain of the Church, and the secular state has no authority to compel a Church to make or alter any of its believes or values, which itself is the bedrock of the Charter.

Which brings us to the point of discussing "marriage" as being a secular idea that is capable of attracting "guardianship of children". Historically we have permitted the "guardianship of one's own children" as a matter of right, but to heterosexual couples that were married in a formal church setting. More recently, "bastard" children have seen their position nearly catch up with "legitimate children", and certainly modern people would say that in all events, the children are not responsible for the sins of their parents.

That has also been the case with "official adoption" although the state in Canada has been particularly weak in respecting the religious convictions of Canadians with respect to the "defacto" adoption implicit with such religous practices as "baptism" where "God fathers" and God mothers" are in fact, defacto "guardians" but which the state has not consistently recognized.

Parents SHOULD be able to select their own "alternatives" for the guardians of their dependent children and there needs to be an appropriate legal process that recognizes and supervises such circumstances.

That then only leaves one really outstanding issue for gays and lesbians. And that is "children" because in every other respect their rights and privileges are the same.

However, with children the issue between "libertarians" and "conservatives" part compay, and "liberals" are split and pulled in different directions.

My view, is that parents of children, either natural parents or adopted parents, or godparents; in all cases they need to set an example for young kids. Kids cannot grow up in a moral vaccuum.

The issue is further complicated by hypocritical gays (ie. lesbians that engage in heterosexual activity for the purpose of procreation, and vice versa). "Pure" gays would in fact not pose any problems because they never could have children in the first place.

In those circumstances where hypocritical gays conceive children, a real issue arises over the safety of the children, over the moral upbringing of the children, and of the stable homelife that all children require.

Do hypocritical gays have a "right" to parent children, that is what this boils down to.

If you say "yes" then you have to admit civil "marriage" and if you say "no" then you must not admit gays to "civil marriage" which consists ONLY of the right to parent children.

My view is a Liberal view, but my view is "no".

However, I do appreciate that this brings about another problem that I do not wish and that is the defeat of the Charter itself.

My remedy is to hold a national referendum on this question. A clear question of simply allowing "gays" to have guardianship over children, yes or no. If Canada says "yes" then so be it, and if it says "no" then that is a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society that the Charter can accept and which will bind judges to the will of the Canadian People.

In the US, lawyers would no doubt challenge such a referendum, but in Canada, it is an appropriate and binding question.

One merely has to ask, can gay parents provide children in their care with healthy guidance and sex education? And if they can, can they also provide their children with healthy spiritual guidance at the same time?

Such a national referendum would bind the hands of the Courts, as it should. It should also bind the hands of the government as it should.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-30 4:13:12 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.