Book’em Dano…

Then “book” them. No? Lucky bastards, and the tragedy is, they probably don’t understand why.

So the Toronto Police has managed, with overwhelming public support, to identify, locate and arrest 7 more criminals from the G20 Most Wanted List. They have assured the public that the search continues, and they will eventually track down and arrest everyone they are looking for.

So, the newly added names as of July 19th are:

Six men and a male youth are facing mischief charges in connection with property damage inflicting during G20 Summit protests last month….

…Andrew Loughrin, 23, of Toronto, Michael Corbett, 29, of Toronto, Brian O’Handley, 19, of Toronto and Robert Kainola, 24, of Toronto are each facing mischief charges.

Kurt Roarco, 22, of no fixed address is facing a mischief charge, an arson charge and failing to comply with probation.

Jeffrey Delaney, 23, of Toronto is facing a mischief charge and an attempted theft charge.

Of course, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, anyone under the age of 18 can’t be named, hence the “youth”. Maybe I’m wrong, but if he/she is old enough to decide to take those kinds of actions on their own, they’re certainly “old enough” to deal with the publicity. They certainly weren’t shy about getting out in front of Toronto and the world and making asses of themselves.

This was in addition to arrests made on July 16th:

Police said Friday they have laid charges of assault, mischief and theft over $5,000 against Cody Caplette, 21, and Phillip Lee, 28. Both men are Toronto residents

And earlier:

Peter Hopperton is one of about 20 people identified as part of a police investigation into activities of people planning violent G20 action.

Police allege Hopperton is a member of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance.

William Vandreil also got bail today, with his set at $50,000.

As well as this:

A man caught on tape damaging a police car was arrested July 14 after turning himself into police with his lawyer. He was one of six people identified after images of vandals were released on July 7. Three were identified within 12 hours.

Ashran Ravindhraj, 25, of Toronto, was charged with arson and two counts of mischief over $5,000 in relation to damage done to a police scout car on June 25.

I don’t know if these thugs truly appreciate how lucky they are that we live in a country that respects the rule of law, even if they do not. They are safe in our jails, they are safe from the public, and they are safe from vigilantes.

Now, I’m sure that in the days ahead we will hear all sorts of weepy, tear-jerking stories about how hard of a life these guys had. The “hug-a-thug” crowd will try to make a case that their anger and violent behaviour is actually the fault of society insofar that society as a whole has failed them and didn’t provide them with sufficient opportunity blah blah blah….pardon me while I puke.

Too harsh? I don’t think so. In fact, I think that’s part of the problem.

Too often we (the afore mentioned “society”), do not speak out hard or loud enough to condemn this kind of behaviour and give quarter and sufferance to those who would seek to place the blame anywhere but upon the shoulders of the individuals who made the choice to take the violent route, knowing full well that such behaviour is wrong. They’re not 2 year old infants who haven’t developed the reasoning skills necessary to determine the difference between right and wrong.

I’m all for throwing the book at them. Charge them, and if found guilty, punish them to the full extent of the law. The message needs to be sent loud and clear across the land: This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in this country, and those who engage in such lawless activities will face the full force of our justice system.

Contrary to popular belief (albeit with good reason through demonstration in recent history), our Justice System actually does have teeth. Unfortunately, thanks to the hug-a-thug loons out there, it’s considered uncivilized for it to bear it’s teeth and take a bite out of crime. No no no, we can’t have our justice system feared! How déclassé! To think that there are those who believe that criminals and deviants should fear the consequences of their actions! How barbaric! No no, let us take them into our arms, show them that they are loved and have value…[end sarc]… good lord, I think I’m going to puke again.

There is right, and there is wrong. Sure there’s shades of grey, but really, grey is still dirtier than white. There are also consequences for actions. These, dare I say men, knew that they were acting in the wrong and they need to know those consequences. I can’t dream of any excuse for what they and others did that day other than a desire to be violent.

I’m disgusted by their actions, nearly to the point of physical illness. And I’m not alone.

Maybe it just needs a jump-start…

Isn’t that supposed to be what this “Tour” was all about? Giving the Liberal Party a jump-start? I hate to be the one to say it, but when the patient is dead, no amount of power will get the body going again.

And really? What is it with Liberals and transportation?

Shall we review current and past events?

In what appears to be hilarious irony, The Liberal Express breaks down within the first hour of setting off on what the Liberals have been touting as the largest event a Leader of the Official Opposition has ever undertaken. Given their current polling numbers…..quite apropos.

In other transportation news, an oil tanker has lost some of it’s load, up to 200 tonnes it’s said, in the St Lawrence seaway. How is this related to Liberal Transportation you ask? The ship was part of the Canada Steamship Lines fleet. For those of you who’s ears don’t recognize the name, this is the fleet that is registered in the Bahamas and belongs to the family of Paul Martin. For shame! I fully expect the Liberals to be as vocal about environmental damage as they have been in other situations.

Then, under the “Head in the Sand (Ash?) Dept.”, several Liberal MP’s were “stranded” in Newfoundland back in April when the Airport decided to cancel morning flights as ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano was predicted to arrive. They began to cover their tracks by suggesting there was a conspiracy involved. It was found out that in light of the planned cancellations, additional earlier flights were provided. Tsk tsk tsk.

In 2008, then Leader of the Official Opposition Stephane Dion had a little trouble with transportation. It seems the Liberals were unprepared for an election they were so busy preparing for. When the time came, poor Mr. Dion was unable to acquire a plane to bring him around the country. When he was finally able to get one from Air Inuit, it turned out to be a massive gas guzzler that cost the party between $18,000 and $20,000 an hour to fly, and was 35 per cent less efficient than the Conservative and NDP planes. To top it all off, this was the launch of the Green Tax Tour.

Maybe it (LPC) just needs a jump-start?

More likey, it just needs a casket.

Is the wind blowing that way now?

With Quebec struggling through reasonable accomodation issues in order to preserve their heritage, France has just voted 335 to 1 on a total ban on of face-covering veils in public spaces.

Similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.

Is this the way the wind is beginning to blow in Western Societies? I’m both encouraged and dismayed if this is true. Not specifically about the veils, but rather by the attitudes behind it.

As far as being encouraged goes, I’m pleased to see countries and societies standing up for their own way of life and culture and protecting it from being trampled over by the stampede of Cultural (Reasonable) Accommodation.  I’ve previously discussed this issue in other aspects here, and here.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.

Just as Quebec and France and other countries have been trying to do, I agree that if faced with protecting my culture (which is what has made Canada for example, a wonderful place to live and why people want to come here) that there should be conditions upon migrating to my country.

Foremost, I want to ensure that migrants understand that when they come to Canada, it is to pursue a better life in a Canadian manner, not to seek to rebuild the country in an image of how they would have rather seen their country of origin under those cultural rules.

Increasingly, other countries are saying ‘We are not some place to be considered a tolerant blank-slate-state that you can come in and change to suit your own beliefs’.

I say that there is nothing wrong with this.

I appreciate the differences that other cultures and individuals bring with them, but I recognize that not all of it can, or should be tolerated in Canada. (see Sharia Law, Honor “Crimes”,  etc). Those things are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian Society or Culture. Time and again, I’ve seen other countries stomp on those who say “In my country…” with an immediate and sometimes hostile “You are not in your country!”.

Why are we in Western Societies so afraid to do the same? Is this some form of White Guilt/Wealth Guilt/Survivor Guilt etc? Are we so ashamed of our own cultures and ways of life that we are unwilling as citizens to stand up and defend it?

And why should I be dismayed by this? Frankly, I’m dismayed that there is only a small handful of countries getting on board with protecting themselves and their own ways of life and culture from outside influences.

Personally, I’m willing to say “This is my country and my way of life and my home. If you choose to come to live in my house, there are different rules you’ll have to live by. If that’s unacceptable to you, then I respectfully suggest you find someplace else more to your liking.”

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

On Meeting Her Majesty and His Royal Higness

Let me first start by saying that the reality of having met Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Phillip the Duke of Edinburgh has yet to fully be absorbed. I’m still in awe of having been formally presented to the Queen and her husband as a representative of Canada.

Many people have lists of things they would like to achieve or do in their lifetimes, more commonly known recently as a Bucket List. Most people include things that they’re fully aware may only ever have a remote chance of happening. For me, meeting Her Majesty was one of those remote happenings. Now, thanks to my political activism and dedication through the opportunities provided to me, I have achieved exactly that. And I couldn’t be more thrilled about it.

The evening itself however, endured a dubious start. A transformer in the downtown core of Toronto chose that evening to fail, and the entire downtown core fell into darkness. This included the Fairmont Royal York Hotel where Her Majesty’s Reception and Dinner were to take place. Traffic was a nightmare when combined with those converging on the Royal York to hopefully catch a glance of the Royal Tour and no traffic signals to control the flows. Inside the hotel, with 38 degree weather outside, the temperatures began to rise without air-conditioning and the Salon in which the Reception was taking place was dimly lit by emergency lighting. Whether it was due to the excitement of the event, or because of a kind of patience and understanding inherent in Canadians, everyone took it in stride and when the power was finally restored, there was simply a sigh of relief and a smattering of applause as the lights came on and the groan of the air-conditioners began.

It was during the Reception that I had the fortune to meet up with fellow Blogging Torries Roy Eapen of Dr. Roy’s Thoughts, Steve Laikos of Officially Screwed, and Matt MacGuire of A Step To The Right.

I was also pleased to meet Mark Dotzert, Kara Johnson and Simon Chapelle of our National Council, Senator Mike Duffy, Olympic Champion Jennifer Heil, Ministers Jason Kenney, Rob Moore and Rona Ambrose and many others of whom I had either known before or had the privilege of meeting for the first time.

I was delighted when I learned that we would be individually presented to the Queen, His Royal Highness, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife Laureen Harper. When my name was announced, I’m sure the pleasure I was experiencing was evident on my face, but I also know that I wasn’t alone. Each of them offered their hand which I took in amazement. This was an honour to which there can hardly be any comparison. As with all moments of staggering importance, it was over far too quickly and seemed a bit of a blur, but it was time to be ushered to my table by a charming and engaging woman with the Royal Tour.

I knew one person at my table, Steve Laikos, who I had met briefly at the National Convention, but everyone at the table was charming and talkative. When the Queen was announced, the room thundered with applause that seemed more than what a room of 350 people could manage. There were a few speeches, a presentation of a new addition to the Hockey Hall of Fame in honour of a previous visit by the Queen and an address by Her Majesty as well. The applause during her entrance was humbled by the sound when Prime Minister Harper announced that Canadians were particularly looking forward to Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 by which time she’ll have served as Queen of Canada for 60 years!

At somewhere around what I believe was 10pm, the Queen gracefully retired for the evening after a wonderful performance by The Canadian Tenors and proceedings were brought to a close. Many people stayed for a time visiting with one another and discussing the privilege of the evening we all shared while taking a few pictures for posterity.

It was a singular event of magic and elegance; everything an evening with the Queen aught to be, and it is a night I will never forget!

Peter Worthington is a Bad Person

In today’s National Post, Peter Worthington has a pretty wretched apologia for the police:

If anything is more misguided and unnecessary than the recent G20 Summit itself, it’s the decision to hold an independent inquiry into police actions that weekend.

A thousand arrests, 263 charged, no one seriously hurt, no police brutality, a serene citizenry, vandalism but no violence.  Forget about it.

Oh, the civil liberties activists have their shorts in a knot, but they always do. Ignore them. As for “violence” and “rioting” on Toronto streets during the G20, that’s hyperbole and wishful thinking.

…

To suggest there was police brutality is again wishful thinking by those who yearn for substance to malign the cops. Yes, some cops over-reacted, or questioned people unnecessarily. Or searched the wrong bag. Or questioned identities…

Or stole an amputee’s prosthetic leg.

Or threatened women with rape.

Or imprisoned people without cause.

Or struck non-violent protesters with batons and shields.

Or beat up a journalist.

But I guess that’s just wishful thinking.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.

Can you guess what I’m wishing now, Mr. Worthington?

Was John Tory Right?

Three years ago this month, Ontario Conservative leader John Tory pledged to extend public funding to all denominational schools across the province of Ontario. At the time, Tory was preparing to lead his party into a fall election campaign against the Ontario Liberal Party, led by then-Premier, and still-Premier, Dalton McGuinty.

For Tory, the larger issue was fairness. Insofar as Catholic denominational schools receive public funding to the exclusion of other denominational schools in Ontario, it made sense to Tory as a matter of equality, as it did to some others, that if one religion enjoyed the privilege of public funding, then so should all other religions.

We know how the story ends. The controversial denominational schools issue felled Tory’s campaign from the very beginning. McGuinty was reelected. And Tory ultimately resigned, ceding the party flag to the current Ontario Conservative leader, Tim Hudak.

The bottom line is this: Ontarians voted against Tory on this issue. And no one can gainsay the freely expressed choice of Ontarians. They, and only they, can choose their representatives in the Ontario legislature.

So according to Ontarians, the answer is clear: John Tory was wrong.

But according to the United Nations, John Tory was right.

In the case of Waldman v. Canada, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Ontario’s policy of extending public funding to one denominational school without funding all others is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to “equal and effective protection against discrimination.” Here is the relevant passage from the full text of the ruling:

[T]he proclaimed aims of the system do not justify the exclusive funding of Roman Catholic religious schools. … In this context, the Committee observes that the Covenant does not oblige [Ontario] to fund schools which are established on a religious basis. However, if [Ontario] chooses to provide public funding to religious schools, it should make this funding available without discrimination. This means that providing funding for the schools of one religious group and not for another must be based on reasonable and objective criteria. In the instant case, the Committee concludes that the material before it does not show that the differential treatment between the Roman Catholic faith and the [Petitioner's] religious denomination is based on such criteria. Consequently, there has been a violation of the [Petitioner's] rights under article 26 of the Covenant to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

Perhaps John Tory can take solace in the knowledge that the United Nations thinks he was right after all.

Accommodating Honour Murder

With Aqsa Parvez finally resting peacefully, her murderers — her very own father and brother — sentenced to the Canadian-style “life in prison” with no chance of parole for 18 years, it’s time for the religious equivalence and multiculturalist types to step forward again and declare that “honour killing,” which I more accurately define as honour murder, is not just Islam’s problem.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!

While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.

To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.

United Nations Population Fund:

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.

As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)

Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.

I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.

… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should  take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.

Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.

From the CTV News story here.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Facebook is a Utility; Even if I Don’t Know What that Means

Do you want to read a really horrible blog post?  Danah Boyd has penned… well… something titled, Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated.  Here, I’ll give you a little sample:

Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand…

What?  How do you overstep you overstep your hand, doing a crab walk?  Usually, I wouldn’t bring attention to such a massacred metaphor, but it’s a pretty good demonstration of the level of quality of the post.

So, what, you may ask, is the point of the post?  As far as I can tell, Ms. Boyd is claiming that Facebook is – and wants to be – a utility, and, consequently, it will get regulated.  She supports the argument by writing that Facebook is a utility, and utilities get regulated.  She further supports the claim by arguing that Facebook is a util… well, you get the picture.  From what I understand, the definition of utility is “something you use a lot and then gets regulated”.

(By the way, she doesn’t really say this is a bad thing.  She seems to generally dislike regulations, but she likes governments threatening regulations.)

In the comments, one reader brings up the idea of Facebook as a public good (which it isn’t, but almost is).  Here’s the thing about the post and this accompanying comment.  They talk about utilities and public goods.  As with many discussions of such topics, they keep using these words.  I do not think the words mean what they think they mean.

It’d be really nice if people who continuously talk about “public goods” would actually bother to learn what the term means.  It does not mean, “I’d like the government to pay for anything that I think is really imporant”.  Hell, if it does, then the complete series of The Wire is a public good.

I’ll expect my copy to arrive in the mail soon.

Could Amazon be the first of many bringing jobs to Canada?

Amazon.com is looking to open a new Distribution Centre here in Canada, if Canadian Heritage allows for it.

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

Next Page »