Anarchy in Belgium? not likely

This is a glorious development to witness:

A caretaker government has been running Belgium since June, setting a post-war record for a period without government.

I wonder how long it will take before people wake up and realize that they do not need government the way they thought they did.

The longer this ship sails, the sooner it will dawn on folks that the names on the ballot boxes do not identify the power of the state.

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.

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.

European Union subsidizing vacations

Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry is an idiot.

“Trudeaupian legerdemain”

Mark Steyn at his best. Brilliant.

Mr. Siddiqui was not impressed by the arguments mounted against the head-to-toe body bag—for example, the notion that it is a “symbol of oppression”:

“Let’s assume that [the niqab] is,” [Haroon Siddiqui] wrote. “Whose business is it to end the practice—that of the state?”

That’s pretty cute coming from a guy who, during this magazine’s long battle with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, argued at length that it was most certainly the business of the state to end the practice of Maclean’s carrying Islamophobic Steyn columns. If the state can regulate what you write and say and think and even (as in the lesbian heckler case at the British Columbia Tribunal) what you quip, it can most certainly regulate what you wear. In Canada, it would be quicker to list what isn’t the business of the state. “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” said Pierre Trudeau, unless, of course, you’re tucked up with a nice mug of cocoa reading an Islamophobic edition of Maclean’s. It was a classic bit of Trudeaupian legerdemain: if you’re allowed to roger anything that moves, or doesn’t, according to taste, you won’t notice all the other parts of your life the state has a place in. In Canada, it’s the state’s business when you get your hip operation, not yours: if the state has jurisdiction over your hip, why shouldn’t it also have jurisdiction over which garments the hip can be sheathed in? In Canada, a resident alien is not permitted to own a bookstore, on grounds of cultural protection. If “cultural protection” can prohibit a homosexual from San Francisco opening up a gay bookstore in Vancouver, why can’t it also extend to a Muslim woman’s dress?

And Quebec is Canada without even the residual restraints of the Britannic inheritance. In the interests of la collectivité, the province regulates not only the public usage of language but the very size of lettering in which your words can be displayed. If the state has power to set a maximum font on the ladies’ room door, why can’t it also set a limit on the yards of cloth you have to hoist up once you get in there?

Emphasized portions mine. Do read it all.

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!

Some Thoughts on the Proposed Anthem Amendment

• I unequivocally loathe the suggestion.
• Is the CPC conservative or not? If so, should not a “conservative” government act to conserve or preserve the nation’s traditions?
• Following the thought line of a National Post commenter, the vast majority of people who have served and laid down their lives for this country are male, they are the nation’s sons. The vast majority of those who will further serve and lay down their lives for this great nation are male, they are the nation’s sons.  Do we change the anthem because women are now more prominent in the military and are becoming battle casualties? Is this reason enough?
• Isn’t the whole thing a bit like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic? I mean, we’re in the hole up to our nostrils, we continue to be taxed on birth, life and death, government is no smaller than it was five years ago, we still involved in war in Afghanistan, and we’ve got people suggesting we should add air pistols to the list of licensed firearms. There are a thousand higher priorities than fiddling with the anthem.
• Misplaced priorities aside, what is there to gain in this enterprise?  Was there some sort of national outcry over the anthem that I didn’t hear about?  Seems to me Canadians sang the living heck of our anthem for two weeks in February, to the point of being hoarse, with tears on our cheeks and pride in our hearts, all of us — male and female and the transgendered/unknown/confused/experimenting.  I didn’t see or hear any females, full or quasi, having identity crises or feeling somehow slighted and emotionally damaged by singing “in all Thy sons’ command.” Tinkering with the anthem is likely to create more headaches for government than having left it completely alone. It causes me to wonder who is the imbecile whispering these dumb suggestions in the PM’s ear? Or is it the man himself?
• Speaking of sexual identity, how far would the government have to go to make a phrase completely sex neutral? And what certainty do we have that whatever is contrived will stand the test of sexual identity evolution, which seems to result in another letter being appended to the acronym each and every year?
• Are there any truly sacred national icons or traditions?  Seriously.

I’m Glad the U.S. Won Silver

Sidney Crosby’s magnificent overtime goal will be remembered for a long long time.  It’s a Pray for Me, Paul Henderson sort of moment.  As someone who had to work in 2002, and listened to the Gold Medal game on the radio, I am so glad I was able to witness this, especially with my daughter at my side (though she was more interested in her story book… she’s 21 months old, and apparently more into short track speed skating).  So, yes, congratulations to the men’s hockey team.

And congratulations to the women’s hockey team, who added far fewer grey hairs to my head.  It is wonderful that Canada is currently on top of the hockey world, completely.

That being said, I am so glad that America won the silver medals… and not just because I wanted Canada to win Gold.  There is, at times, an anti-American sentiment in Canada (and much of the world).  To a certain extent this is understandable.  They’re big; they’re rich; they’re powerful.  Regardless of the fact that hockey “is our sport”, the United States has the resources to compete in any sport they choose.  As such, they’re always a target.  They’re the big brother, the privileged rival, the favourite that we all tend to cheer against.

Nonetheless, Canada and the United States have a definite bond.  We have our border.  We have a shared history.  In hockey, we are obvious rivals, but we also share a professional league.  Our NHL teams possess many players of both nationalities (and many other… I’m lookin’ at you A-train).  Beyond that, we share our cultures with each other.  U.S. TV shows always have great ratings in Canada.  Hit Canadian shows inspire hit American shows and cult films.  We are connected.

I value this relationship.  As such, I wish America and Americans much success, and I would not want any other country a step down from us on the podium.  Sure, we may have a longer hockey rivalry with Russia(/the Soviet Union), but our current rivalry with America is richer than our current rivalry with Russia.

Anyway, the best rivalry is always against an opponent you can respect and love.

Liberals Look to 2006 Strategy After 2008 Disaster?

The Liberals, and their cheerleaders in the Toronto media, simply don’t get it! From a strictly strategic point of view, I’ve seen this time and time before in the business world — a former market leader, trounced by a new and innovative successor, tries something new for the sake of new and falls flat on its face before coming to the conclusion that the bland, old ways of doing things can work again if only the effort is really sincere.

Enter Lawrence Martin, whose political insights are so honed, that he’s joining Frank McKenna in giving the Tories the upcoming Red playbook months before the next election! Misjudging 2008′s election results as too ideologically fought, the Liberal Party of Canada has, following McKenna’s lead, abandoned the principle notion for the good ol’ strategy of fear-mongering. “Just bring out Harper’s old quotes!” they say, as if that is some magical panacea that will bring the Liberals back above 100 seats in the Commons.

Just as Yahoo!, Eaton’s, Sony and MySpace all found out though, times change! It’s one thing to, for example, refer to a 1997 quote from the Prime Minister about our need to get rid of the Canada Health Act, but another to follow the argument though on why this means the incumbent entering his fourth year in office needs to be turfed. Garble up the “second tier” quote as they will, the Liberals will also have a hard time explaining how their leader was more recently condoning the use of torture.  This isn’t 2000 anymore…for that matter, it isn’t even 2006 anymore where the Liberals could still rely on a certain level of incumbent comfort among the electorate.

In this new era, it is the Tories who can, and have been, making the arguments against the unknown and untested. Unlike the Liberals though, they haven’t been tied down with a scandal as big as the Chretien-era AdScam issue, and still have some degree of principle over the Liberal Party. The best that a Liberal scorched earth campaign could do is, perhaps, spook a few voters in Toronto, for all the good it will do. The rest of the country, nay world is concentrated right now on the bread and butter issues. Chretien survived the Somalia Inquiry without a scratch; Harper will get by these torture issues just fine. As for what will win the election — taxes, jobs, stability — what have the Liberals said, other than a leader’s musings last April in Cambridge (Ontario, not Mass.; just needed to make that clear!) about the need to raise taxes. That’ll be a winner…for a 2nd tier party competing with the NDP right now!

Sherlock Holmes and the Liberal Disrespect For 11:11

This picture was sent to the media by the local Liberal campaign in the riding of St. Catherines, depicting Conservative MP Rick Dykstra on his BlackBerry at a Remembrance Day event. The Globe & Mail ran with the story, allowing itself to get bogged down by the details of when what was sent where.

Let’s think about this though folks. Maybe Dykstra was doing something inappropriate, maybe he wasn’t. However, if he was doing something inappropriate, at an inappropriate time, what does that say for the person (presumably a Liberal, but at least someone whose work they’re now endorsing by sending out this photo) who took the picture? Silly Liberals, pics aren’t for kids!

Next Page »