Quebec judge attacks home-schooling family

A Quebec judge ordered a family in Notre-Dame-des-Bois to send its children to compulsory government operated day-care and public school. The intention is to provide needed socialization and education that, according to the judge, were being deprived by the parents.

This is a shame on government and a horrifying attack on the family.

CINOs sell out

Liberals and NDP, too.

“That this House, while recognizing the importance of vigorous debate on subjects of public interest, expresses its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean’s Magazine to denigrate the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions.”

The “Quebec nation?” Are you kidding me? And still nobody in the Big-3 voted against the motion after hearing that phrase? No, not one. In a delicious irony, the only MP to object, independent Quebec MP Andre Arthur.

What’s that, Jane? A “separatist trap,” they say. Oh, it was a trap alright, but here’s what this lowly peasant doesn’t understand….

How is it that career politicians and alleged “smart people” could not figure out that there was no way out of what the Bloc had planned? How is it that the lot of them, like a pack of fools, thought there would be any good come from pandering to the Bloc and Quebec just one mo’ time? How is it that not a single Big-3 MP possesses the balls to kick the Bloc in the crotch when they introduce asinine motions?

Instead, now, in addition to selling out on free speech and freedom of the press, we have the Big-3 on record endorsing the “history” and “institutions” of the “Quebec nation.” Nice. Real nice. Can’t wait to see how THAT plays out. Morons.

And you wonder, dear CINO party phone worker, why I won’t take out membership or give another dollar to the party?!?!

Answer: my money is going to Andre Arthur, the only MP in the House who didn’t sell out to appease the Separatists.

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.

“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.

The State’s Insatiable Demand for Money: Quebec to Start Online Gambling Website

The Quebec government proves that if you can’t beat them, join them:

Loto-Quebec has received cabinet approval to get into the online gambling business.

The provincial gambling monopoly, in conjunction the BC and Atlantic Lottery Corporations, will set up a site this fall aimed at stemming the lucrative yet unregulated internet gambling market.

And here comes the really laughable part:

Loto-Quebec president and CEO Alain Cousineau says his agency has been trying to fight online gambling sites without success.

Instead the agency’s gambling site will offer a safer alternative, with methods of discouraging problem gamblers.

Are Liberals suffering from a millstone named Quebec?

It’s debatable I think. The main comparison I’d make is that Liberal fortune is so dependent upon the good graces of Quebec and the Conservatives are not. Liberals can’t obtain a majority government without Quebec and that’s mostly because they don’t have The West, whereas the Conservatives can technically obtain a majority without Quebec, even if that’s unlikely by virtue that they DO have The West by and large.

On Steve Janke’s blog post about Michael Ignatieff firing his Chief of Staff, Soccermom made a comment that got me to thinking about this:

Any Quebecker who becomes Liberal leader in the next couple of years will get laughed out of the West.

Now, while most Liberal leaders recognize the importance of wooing Western votes (even if unsuccessfully), doing so earns them the scorn of too many Quebeckers for them to put a serious effort into it lest they lose their support. This is mostly because many (not all) Quebeckers view themselves above and apart from Canada, especially those western places.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love Quebec, it’s culture and it’s people, I just wish that they’d come down from their cross sometime and accept that they are fully a part of Canada and not above or separate from it.

So Liberal leaders become hamstrung from “including the west” too vigorously and end up simply speaking hollow words to Westerners (which comes across as patronizing, and rightfully so because it is) which further wides the rift between the East and West. As a result, in order to achieve their majority governments, Liberals dig themselves deeper into the graces of Quebec by lavishing praise, concessions and money on them. Again, this practice is abhorrent to other Canadians, and especially to the Westerners who don’t hate Quebec but just want the special treatment to end and achieve equality.

Unfortunately, until Quebec officially signs onto the Constitution, this divide will continue to exist and fluctuate. And why should they? They get so much more with really no consequences. Again, this isn’t personal, it’s politics.

Now, the only way I see this changing is if the Conservatives are able to secure a Majority Government without having to be obliged to Quebec for it. Technically, it’s possible; it’s just REALLY unlikely.

If Quebec suddenly becomes not so important to the ever important majority it could spur one of two things, and this is the risk that politicians aren’t willing to take:

1) Quebec becomes aware that it needs Canada

If Conservatives were able to achieve that majority without needing Quebec, it may send the message that the time of blackmail is over for Quebec, at least for the next 4 years. It would no longer have the numerical leverage it has used to hold the rest of the country hostage. This might jolt them into conceding that unless they join the Confederation as an equal partner, they could be handed only what the rest of the country deigns to give them.

2) Quebec fears being ostracized and separates

This is the greatest fear of politicians. We know that practically, Quebec as a sovereign nation would ultimately fail without massive provisions and support by Canada or the United States. The problem is that Quebec would still have to give up part of their absolute sovereignty in order to do that. They want all the benefits without any of the consequences. Our currency, our Passports, our National Defense Organizations, our inter-provincial trade agreements etc. etc. But if they feel that becoming subject to Canada is a worse fate than trying to go it on their own, Separatism could well rise up in sufficient numbers to make it happen.

Legally.

And so, in order to avoid this disastrous event for Liberal fortunes, they continue to bribe Quebec into staying like some fair-weather spouse whom they can’t bear to leave, but can’t afford to keep indefinitely.

We Should Raise the GST

Debates are raging in British Columbia and Ontario about the introduction of the “HST” (Harmonised Sales Tax).  This would be a combination of federal and provincial sales taxes, similar to Quebec’s QST.  The HST isn’t very popular.  Opponents worry that it is ripe for abuse, and will result in an increased tax burden.

Stephen Gordon at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative disagrees and writes in favour of a harmonised tax:

The Charest government is floating the idea of increasing the QST – which has been harmonised with the GST since the very beginning – by another percentage point (in addition to the one-point increase announced in last spring’s budget) as a way of dealing with the post-recession deficit. This is clearly the right thing to do, and the Quebec Liberal government is to be congratulated for putting the proposal on the table. But what, you may ask, is the reaction of the PQ opposition?

PQ leader Pauline Marois said the government should hold off until the economy has stabilized.

This is the proper concern to raise, as befits the duty of an opposition party. The idea is a good one, but it’s important to get the timing right.

On the specific issue of an HST, I can’t agree with Mr. Gordon.  A harmonised tax hides the tax initiative of each level of government, making it more difficult for citizens to hold their politicians accountable.  One of the great things about the GST (as opposed to the hidden taxes that it replaced) is that it is an in-your-face tax.  If any government decided to tinker with it, we’d know; there could be no hidden shenanigans.  But this is a little beside the point.

Currently, we have a ludicrous, inefficient tax regime that is, seemingly, built to confuse, confound and just flat out con taxpayers.  The tax code is incomprehensibly complex, wasting time and money as taxpayers attempt to comply with a myriad of regulations.  Further, the practice of excessive withholding leads to people overpaying, unfairly stuffing government coffers with money that rightly belongs to individuals.

Shifting away from our tiered, exemption-ridden tax system towards a flat (or flatter) and simplified system would be a boon to our economy.  However, abandoning income-based taxation and moving towards consumption-based taxation would be even more beneficial.  Consumption-based taxation leads to fewer market distortions, encourages investment and simplifies tax remittance procedures, essentially freeing private individuals of all transaction costs related to paying taxes.  Since we already have the GST, the added transaction costs associated with tax payments for businesses would be negligible (especially compared to the savings accrued from a simplified tax code).

It has been suggested that a consumption tax of 30% could replace the income tax system.  This would be a big shock for consumers, but, thankfully, they’d have more money in their bank accounts to pay these taxes.  Even if this lead to fewer consumer purchases, money would (assuming we don’t just stuff all our extra cash under our mattresses) be funneled into savings and investment, spurring economic growth, and possibly curbing rampant consumer debt.

Even if we found this tax system to be too regressive, we could address that with basic transfers to those with lower incomes.  The administration would be simpler than our current tax regime (as we already transfer wealth, and give GST rebates to those who qualify), thus the economic drag would be decreased.

No one wants to see a 30% tax added to every consumer purchase, but such a scenario would make people all the more aware of the level of taxation to which they are subjected.  With accurate information, citizens could make more informed and rational decisions about tax policy than they do today.  Even if people were to become numb to the 30% tax, the fact that it would be better for us by facilitating the expansion of wealth should be reason enough.

So.. who’s with me?  Let’s raise the GST!

Quebec government plays favorites in abortion industry

The Quebec government is instituting more stringent regulations on abortion providers. Various clinics are no longer going to find it worth their while to offer abortions. Yet, there will be making exceptions:

En fin de journée hier, le ministre de la Santé, Yves Bolduc, a par ailleurs indiqué que les centres de santé des femmes, des organismes à but non lucratif où se pratiquent notamment des interruptions volontaires de grossesse, ne seront pas soumis aux règles les contraignant à devenir des cliniques médicales spécialisées.

Too bad. Quebeckers who want abortions are going to have to wait longer.

The absurd Consumer Protection Act at work in Quebec

The busy-bodies of La Coalition québécoise sur la problématique du poids complained and took Burger King to court for having broken the law — a law that makes it illegal to target advertizing to children under 13 years of age. Burger King has chosen to plead guilty and pay a $12,000 fine but they are not alone:

Après Saputo (muffin Igor), General Mills (céréales Lucky Charms) et P2P (campagne publicitaire des muffins Igor), c’est un quatrième plaidoyer de culpabilité enregistré en moins de quatre mois concernant l’interdiction de faire de la publicité commerciale destinée aux moins de 13 ans.

McDonald’s est également poursuivie par l’OPC pour avoir fait de la publicité illégale destinée aux jeunes. La date du procès sera fixée sous peu.

Such laws and legal actions are nonsense.

It appals me to think that silly civil servants are wasting tax-payers’ dollars meddling around with stupid laws that assume consumers are stupid.

L’Office de la protection du consommateur continue d’assurer la surveillance du respect de la loi et entreprendra les procédures judiciaires nécessaires contre les entreprises qui y contreviennent.

I would rather see all of those parasitic bureaucrats sent home and paid their equivalent salaries in the form of a welfare check. That would be a more honest way of wasting taxes.

Over-consumption of medication in Quebec is good according to Quebec health minister

The minster of health in Quebec, Yves Bolduc, commented on recent statistics that show Quebeckers generally consume more prescription drugs than people in any other jurisdiction in Canada or in North America for that matter. He sees it as a socialist success.

Can you believe it? Bolduc’s reasoning is pretty simple too: since Quebec is the only place that has medications covered by the government, people are taking advantage of what they need. He says directly that everybody else is under-consuming medications and not getting the standard of health care they deserve. Pretty astounding way of seeing things, I would say.

I find the minister’s line of reasoning quite impressive because it is perfectly valid. There is nothing wrong with looking at the statistics and interpreting them his way. It is just a difference in opinion. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this minister’s perspective is a shining example of the inherent or systemic dysfunction of government.

If any ounce of your senses finds this health minister’s perspective distasteful, I congratulate you. You give me hope for the human race. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves, go watch this movie: “Québec sur ordonnance” (2007) and read this:

Même le ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Philippe Couillard, affiche une surprise non feinte à la caméra de Paul Arcand en apprenant que les représentants des compagnies pharmaceutiques ont accès à un portrait très complet des habitudes de prescription des médecins québécois, gracieuseté de l’IMS Health Canada. Pendant ses recherches, Paul Arcand a en effet mis la main sur un document qui compile toutes les prescriptions faites par les médecins dans une année.

Mieux, ce document est mis à jour tous les trois mois, ce qui permet aux représentants pharmaceutiques de suivre en direct l’évolution de leur opération de charme auprès d’un médecin donné.

Next Page »