"Green Shift" Shows Liberals Still Ontario-Quebec Centric

I'm going to call Stephane Dion's green plan what we're all thinking; the green shaft. I'm sure that four letter word has crossed all our minds as the Liberal leader prepares to push his carbon tax agenda on a groaning Canada. One need not look to Kennedy or Roswell to find conspiracies since I would argue the green movement and politicians are both working together to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to fuel their own agenda. For the Liberals, taxation seems to be the solution to everything. People smoke too much, tax it. People use health care too much, tax it more. People drive too much, tax them too. So now we're moving onto the dreaded carbon tax. The greenies have argued that the release of carbon in the atmosphere has gone on for too long and now it's time to pay the real cost of it. Academics love the idea, while sitting in their ivory towers watching the world go by through green coloured glasses. Such ideas, like the proposed carbon tax, are often created through knee jerk reactions to problems, or perceived problems, by politicians who have no idea what they're talking about.

This weekend, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut joined Alberta and Saskatchewan in denouncing the Liberal leader's plan. According to the three territorial premiers, the plan would do great harm to northern communities since they rely on diesel fuel for heat and electricity. They argue that a carbon tax would futher add to already prohibative fuel costs and would do great harm to the territorial citizens. They noted that it was impractical to put in place alternative energy sources in the region. The cold tundra is hardly an ideal spot for wind or solar power. Alberta and Saskatchewan worry about economic collapse since the tax would put a heavy burden on the two provinces' oil industries. Oil provides a living for many living in the area. In BC, the first province to enact a carbon tax, truckers and remote communities are fuming since they can no longer afford fuel. Truckers are demanding to be exempt from the tax, something the government is unlikely to do. According to polls though, over half of Canadians have warmed up to the carbon tax. Unfrotunately, these polls tend to be "small-n" studies that interview perhaps 1000 people, willing to answer the phone to telemarketrs, in central Canada with no reguard to the rest of the country. Central Canada holds about half of the country's population. The problem is that most of Canada's resource rich regions, which our national economy depends upon, aren't located in central Canada but rather in the west. So far, I'm seeing more and more provinces and people lashing out against the idea of a carbon tax. Even we here in Ontario need to worry, as I indicated in a previous article. Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly indicated that such a tax would "screw" Canadians. Even the NDP has dumped the idea since they know it will alienate their labour-centric voting base, many of whom work in the oil industry out west.

So why does Dion think this is a good idea when the costs of it are so high. First of all, we've all been lied to that the Earth will be destroyed by anthropogenic global warming, which is a dubious theory at best. Perhaps Dion genuinely thinks he will do some good all be it he is naive in thinking so. More accurately, it's simply another cash grab. Dion claims that the carbon tax will be revenue neutral, meaning that it will be offset by massive tax cuts in income taxes. Brian Mulroney tried the same thing when he instituted the controversial Goods and Services Tax back in the 1980s. The revenue neutral nature of the GST never saw the light of day and was largely responsible for the Progressive Conservatives not being reelected in 1993. (Scrapping the GST was a major part of Cretien's campaign, which also never say the light of day) Dion himself was environment minister under the Cretien government. He was appointed to the position rather than being an elected MP. He is where he is due to a healthy dose of patronage by his former boss, who himself was a cronie of Trudeau.

Dion has most recently been looking to the Australian model for his carbon tax. Their tax was instituted by new left wing government after former conservative PM Gordon Brown failed to win reelection. Australia may be a vast country but it is a warmer climate that doesn't rely on fossil fuels for heating. It also lacks the energy industry that Canada has. Trying to fit the Australian model to Canada is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. If he wants to compare it to another country, perhaps he should look to Europe, more specifically to our motherland, the UK. The United Kingdom has some of the highest taxes on carbon in the developed world. So far, it has gotten to the point where people cannot afford fuel and truck drivers are launching massive protests against high fuel prices. Many Britains are now living in fuel poverty. The UK like us has a colder climate and has a major oil and gas industry. I'd hardly think that Labour's carbon tax has worked there. Protests in the UK have been echoed by similar protests in other EU countries, and for what? Is there any proof that putting a tax on carbon emissions will reduce greenhouse gases and cancel global warming? I will give $1000 to the first person that can give me a mountain of proof from certified academic, peer-reviewed sources that it does. There in lies the rub. If you cannot prove that such a tax will have ANY effect on it's intended purpose, then it should not be implemented. Besides, you cannot discourage carbon use without having some sort of alternative being implemented. Without these alternatives, the carbon tax just screams cash grab.

What it amounts to is an abuse of power so that Dion can simply get rid of things he doesn't personally like. This all indicates to me that the Liberals simply want to plug their ears, close their eyes, and pretend there's nothing west of Sudbury and nothing east of Quebec City. This is exactly why the party is faltering. What you see in the polls are the die hard liberals who wouldn't change their vote no matter what. The party is at serious risk of becoming irrelevant and out of touch with Canadians, and stunts like the "Green Shift" don't help much. Right now, they're hoping to capitalize on the green hysteria. If it will work, I really can't say. The one thing I can say for sure is that Harper is right, it will screw Canadians.

read more...

Musings On Macleans, York U, and Islam's War on Words

Islam was thrust into the spotlight in 2001 when several religious zealots hijacked American planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It's one of those events where you can remember exactly where you were and what you were doing at the time. In the nearly seven years since then, I've had a lot of time to muse on the nature of terrorism and Islam. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all the terrorists involved in 9/11 and similar atrocities were Muslim. I ultimately believe that the West did not push the Middle-East towards this and the events were orchestrated by a mad man. However, the wars in Iraq and strained relations with Iran have done little to help the situation in recent years.

On the home front, Islam has been fighting a war of words against the West, or rather a war on words. The religion has found it very difficult to deal with Western styles and multiculturalism. Islam has taken an lesson from Scientology and is now using the legal system as a method to attack and ruin their critics. Currently, journalist Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine are being hauled in front of the BC Human Rights Tribunal for "smearing Islam." The Canadian Islamic Congress called the Steyn article hate speech. The article in question was called The Future Belongs to Islam. The article basically brings up the issue of a weakening Global North. Islamic youth, who are one of the fastest growing segments of the global population, are further becoming radicallized and will change the shape of the world. You can read it for yourself and make your own judgements. Islam certainly isn't the first religion to use the legal system to attempt to silence critics. I already mentioned Scientology, who is currently fighting with Wikileaks and internet group Anonymous. Christianity as well has a very long history of doing this. What makes Islam any different? The answer is nothing, but that still doesn't make it right.

Hate speech tends to be a very subjective thing. Who determines what is offensive? An individual, a group, or a government? Who determines how severe the offensive remark or piece is? That's the ultimate problem with this kind of censorship, it's a slippery slope. There is no set formula for determining hate speech, nor can there ever be. The government simply defines it as something that incites hatred, which is a very vague statement in itself. People need to realize that words are words, not weapons. In an open and civilized society, if someone makes a remark you disagree with, you are entirely free to counter that position. The issue at stake here is that interest groups can now use your own words as a weapon against you. The problem with human rights tribunals is they're nothing more than kangaroo courts. They are not proper courts of law but rather civilian bodies stocked with civil servants. They are considered the lowest rung of the legal ladder and they do answer to the higher courts. The fact that you are being put on trial by people who may or may not be trained and qualified justices is something disturbing. The tribunals can't really do much other than to smear your good name. There's no guarantee you're going to get a fair trial. They are not required to follow precedent. Much of what goes on gets twisted in legal babble and psychological warfare. If hate is against the law, why aren't the courts dealing with it? I suppose people would be up in arms if that happened. Canadians as a whole are less tolerant of censorship than Americans are, at least concerning the explicit variety. The tribunals present a more implicit form of censorship since they tend to fly under the radar of the media. Many Canadian news outlets have failed to even discuss these issues.

A double standard does exist when it comes to hate speech and how Canadians deal with human rights. Such cases of this can be seen at Canadian universities. I picked York University, located in northern Toronto as one case study since it happens to be one of the most pronounced local cases of this happening. It's student's union has made pushes to censor and dispel any debate on campus. Their basic argument is that you can have debates on issues, such as abortion, as long as you tow our line. The abortion debate was one of the more recent cases when the student's union met for an emergency meeting a couple weeks ago and decreed that pro-life groups on campus would no longer receive funding in an effort to silence them. I consider myself pro-choice but I find this to be an appalling case of deliberate censorship at an institution that is supposed to openly encourage unencumbered debate. Islam falls into this due to similar issues over the debate of Israel. To me, the whole Israel-Palestine conflict has seemed childish. The whole conflict has been over a small strip of land out in the dessert that people on both sides are willing to slaughter children for. To me the optimal solution would simply be to unite the two sides into a federal republic with two semi-autonomous provinces. This would certainly be the civilized way of doing things. While religion does play a role in the Israel issue, it is really over who controls what land. However, other Muslims have chosen to highlight religious tensions to distort what is really going on. Many universities have begun to hold "Israeli Apartheid" weeks in which Islamic students and their socialist comrades protest all things Jewish. These frequently turn into mini-riots with Jewish students being harassed. If these events involved white men adorned with Nazi tattoos and sheets over their heads, we would call this racism. If the students perpetrating these acts are Muslim, suddenly it becomes an expression of their beliefs. Sorry, but I'm going to have to call this out on what it is. Muslim students that participate in these events and the students unions that allow this to go on are racist and anti-Semitic. I suppose it's interesting to note though that Karl Marx, who students unions love, was an anti-Semite himself despite having Jewish ancestry. I'm hardly an appolegist for the Jews. I'm rather indifferent towards Israel. However, I do feel that these campus unions are so deeply hypocritical when campus hallways are adorned with posters that tell you to denounce racism and create a positive learning space. The problem is that most students do not vote in student council elections. I admit that I never did. The reason was because they all ran on nearly identical socialist platforms. I could vote for either Team Yellow or Team Orange but either way, I'm going to get the same thing. If I do not support that, I have nobody to vote for. It seems that everything on campus now is religion or ethnicity based. Things like the chess club of old have been replaced by the Chinese Students Club, or the Christian Club, or the Muslim Club. It seems to me that universities are becoming more exclusive rather than inclusive. The social engineers always proudly refer to Canadian multiculturalism as being the tossed salad compared to the United States' melting pot. However, I'm not sure this is really working to anybody's benefit. The universities are a shining example to the failure of this thinking.

The face of our country is changing, that's a given. Whether this has been a positive thing or a negative one is up to an individuals own interpretation. The issue is different groups essentially abusing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal system to launch attacks at one another. This I think we can all agree is a very negative thing. The goal of the Charter was to encourage unity, not divisiveness. Canadians cannot let go of the values we've spent 130 years building simply because some group finds them offensive or incompatible with how they lived back in their old country. There should be a sign at every immigration line at the airport saying "Welcome to Canada, you're Canadian now, leave your past and current conflicts at the door". We badly need to adopt the US melting pot if we're going to survive in a multicultural society. Our current salad bowl policy is going to lead to disaster.

read more...

Who's to Blame for GM Fiasco

GM has announced that it cease production at four North American truck plants, laying off 1000 workers at the Oshawa plant. Workers are obviously very upset since they just signed a contract guaranteeing job security until at least 2011. As the dust settles today, talk radio will likely be bristling over who's to blame for this. I'm hardly a union supporter but I do feel this was an act in bad faith. It also shows some weaknesses in GM's management and the business itself. The questions to ask now are what caused this and what can we do about it.

I've personally never owned an American car and I never would. Some may think me to be in the wrong to not buy locally. However, I feel that there are no American cars currently on the market that are both reliable and fuel efficient, or meet my needs. The American car has become what the Japanese cars once were, garbage. I've known a few people who own or deal with GM products and they've all said they need major repairs only after a couple years of ownership. The likes of Honda and Toyota are built solid and they take pride in that notion. Quality issues are across the board when it comes to American manufacturers but GM tends to have the worst record of the bunch due to cost cutting measures and part substitutions. It's one of the reasons the cars tend to be so cheap.

Another problem for the American manufacturers has come from the price of gas which has led to the crash of the big vehicle market. Back in the 1990s, you could but a litre of gas for a scant (by today's standards) 50 cents. The monster 30 gallon tanks in SUVs, pickups, and minivans could be filled for $50. 2007 is when I would pin the shift since it's the year when prices stabilized at at or over $1 per litre in Canada. Today at a $1.30, that massive tank now costs over $130 to fill. Assuming you fill that thing up once a week, every week, it would cost $6760 per year for fuel alone. This compares to about $2600 eighteen years ago, which is about $3800 in today's money. It's interesting to note we're paying 177% more for fuel than we should be. I digress. Obviously six grand is a lot of money when the average income is only about $30,000. In the 1990s, SUVs and vans were seen as practical due to the perception of them being safer and also because of their greater flexibility. Today as a commuter vehicle, the price of gas has made them prohibitive for the average consumer to operate. This second problem is the one GM has chosen to blame for the job losses at its four truck plants, including the one in Oshawa.

The question people have been asking is who is to blame for this. I place the blame squarely on GM and the Canadian Auto worker's Union. Over the past few years, General Motors has made a series of bad business decisions. The writing has been on the wall for some time but the company's management was either too blind or too stupid to read it. From about 2002 to 2008, the price of gas has jumped from around 60 cents to $1.30 in Canada. Analysts in both Canada and the US had been warning automakers for some time that the market for small and medium trucks would burst soon. 2005 was a benchmark year since it was the first time gas prices touched record highs. It was also the first year where gas rose over the psychological barrier of $1 per litre. 2008 has seen a sharp drop in demand in SUVs and vans and a sharp rise in the demand for cars and crossovers. You didn't need to be an economist or auto market expert to have seen this coming three years ago. However, the folks at GM continued churning out these large vehicles. They overproduced a product and now nobody wants it, the price of them has dropped dramatically and people who already own trucks find they cant' sell them. It's simply supply and demand. Nobody wants the sub 20mpg SUV anymore. Honda and Toyota et al out in Japan jumped in on the small car market years ago. People laughed at the concept of compact cars being in high demand, but now they are. It's now Toyota and Honda laughing their way to the bank. Other American automakers were late to the starting gate. Both Ford and Chrysler have now released their own widely successful lines of crossovers and small cars. When opportunity called, GM execs must of been in the washroom. Under basic consumerism, if you can't give the people what they want, they'll go someplace else, and you loose business. To add to the matter, GM signed a contract with it's workers just two weeks ago guaranteeing job security until at least 2011. To come back fourteen days later and say "we were kidding, 1000 of you are going to loose your jobs" is highly unprofessional and in very bad faith. For a company that badly needs some good PR, they certainly aren't doing much to help themselves. I expect the shareholders are going to eat them alive on this since it seems to me the company needs a change in management.

The union too is part to blame, mainly for making North American labour uncompetitive. Out of any job, autoworkers have some of the sweetest of perks, on par or even beyond those of school teachers in this province. They have full medical, dental, and vision care. They get very generous pensions. The company basically looks after your family from cradle to grave under these contracts. On top of that, they get higher cost of living increases than anyone else. I remember hearing from someone that assembly line workers make $70 per hour, which is double what most other unskilled labourers get. These perks of course come at a price. Companies go to countries like Mexico, where you can pay the workers under half of what you have to pay North American workers. However, Mexican workers are still getting double what they would make doing another job so they're quite content with the pay and perks they get. Since they don't need skilled labourers to put cars together, automakers are going to naturally seek out the cheaper rate. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since as I said, the Mexican worker is going to be making more than what they would have, thus increasing their standard of living. The problem is that the CAW and the UAW have painted themselves into a corner. They treat these perks as a god given right but in the process, they're pricing themselves right out of the labour market.
For years, we've known that manufacturing is not the way of the future. The second industrial revolution in the 1960s was a sign of this when people began moving out of factories and into to services. Right now, this is currently transitioning to focus on more personal based services as companies outsource their work to other countries. This means a transition to a more educated workforce. Analysts are predicting a huge boon for skilled trades and professions such as doctors. Unskilled, assembly line labourers are becoming obsolete. The notion of job security in this day and age too is foolish. They tell kids these days that you will most likely have several jobs over your lifetime. Nobody works for the same company for 40 years anymore. However, unions are choosing to fight what they call the scourge of globalization. At this point though, stopping globalization is like trying to stop a tornado. CAW boss Buzz Hargrove has called for the federal government to levy teriffs on import cars, but this is impossible to do. The whole irony about this is that both Honda and Toyota have several plants in Canada and the US. They may not be part of the CAW though, which could be Buzzy boy's problem. Besides that, putting tariffs on foreign made goods is an ass backwards approach. This form of thinking is no different from the Luddites back during the first Industrial Revolution. They too were tilting at windmills. This is not capitalism's fault either since globalization has shown to care little of what economic system you are running under. Take China for example.

The final share of blame goes to the provincial government. Like the unions, they too have failed to see the path of globalization ahead of them. They've convinced themselves that Ontario always has been and always will be a manufacturing heartland. As I said though, the current trends are showing otherwise. Obviously it is in the government's best interest to keep workers employed, however they are choosing to ignore the changing realities. One of the biggest problems is the handing out of multi-million dollar aid packages to the automakers such as GM. I believe that these handouts only reinforce bad business decisions. Essentially, the province has forked out tax payer dollars to keep people manufacturing a product that nobody wants. While this is not the sole reason why GM has been making poor decisions, it certainly is a contributing factor. Of course the argument can be made that without those handouts, Oshawa workers would have found themselves without jobs long before now. True, but they're still ultimately going to loos their jobs. All these handouts did was delay the inevitable for a couple of years. However, doing nothing doesn't win votes and I really don't see any practical/feasible alternative either the province or the federal government could have taken.

The auto industry is failing in Ontario. Ultimately this round has been the fault of General Motors and they should shoulder most of the blame. The union too has made mistakes by pricing themselves out of the market at a time when manufacturing is becoming obsolete. There will likely be a lot of questions asked over the coming weeks, including a possible wildcat strike by GM employees. However, one cannot delay the inevitable. The province and the feds need to brace for more of this to happen in the future and contingency plans need to be made as soon as possible. Ontario has already made the moves to retrial manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs but this may not be enough. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done to alleviate this, or at least nothing that couldn't have been done years ago.

read more...

ACTA Grossly Unconstitutional

Should your constitutional rights be violated in order to protect a statute right of another individual or corporation? By statute rights, I mean a law that is not part of the constitution. Of course you're going to say no. However, there is an increasing movement to do so under a new trade agreement known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This new agreement deals with international copyright. Over the past 10 or so years, the amount of abuse copyright law has taken has been steadily increasing as content providers try to put the "internet genie back in the bottle", as one writer put it. The ACTA however brings this to a new low and in my opinion is grossly unconstitutional.

This new agreement was first leaked on freedom of information champion Wikileaks the other day. It will be tabled as an international agreement at the G8 meeting in Japan in a few weeks time. The agreement would turn border guards and public security personnel into copyright police. All laptops, iPods, and other media devices being brought across borders would be checked to make sure they do not contain pirated media. Under the agreement, this would include rips of CDs and DVDs that the user has legally purchased. Anyone found with pirated content would have their device confiscated or destroyed. In an interview with the Victoria Times Colonist, David Fewer from the University of Ottawa Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic noted that "the process on ACTA so far has been cloak and dagger. This certainly raises concerns." The agreement also gives authorities the ability to act agaisnt copyright infringers without complaint from the rights holder. Michael Geist, also from UofO and copyright law expert told the National Post that "The lack of consultation, the secrecy behind it and the speculation that this will be concluded within a matter of months without any real public input is deeply troubling." Both men noted that the agreement would be almost impossible to back out of once in place. The deal would also impose strict restrictions on internet service providers, forcing them to hand over information without a warrant.

Right from the get go, the ACTA violated both the Canadian and US constitutions. We've all heard of police stopping black men just because they are driving a nice car. This is no different. The way the law is set up, just because you own an iPod, you're a pirate. The part where internet providers would have to hand over information without warrant is also worrying. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that all Canadians have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. What separates this from inspecting bags for weapons or drugs at the airport is that there is no possibility of endangering the person's self or others with your iPod. The agreement also violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States for the same reasons. Of further concern is the fact that this agreement has been kept under wraps from both parliament and the public. That tells me that the respective governments of the countries involved did not want the public to be aware of this. Such an agreement has wide raging implications and should be discussed before parliament. The problem is that trade agreements are not laws and thus do not have to be.

The last issue of concern is the fact that this agreement seems poised to eliminate the provision of "fair use" under copyright law. Under the ACTA, every single person who owns a computer or MP3 player is a pirate. Everyone who has ripped a CD for their personal music collection is a pirate and should have their property taken. Originally, Digital Rights Management software was used to limit what you could do. As this has proven unpopular, media distributors have turned to the toughening the laws. This is the bottom of the barrel for a long range of steps by content providers such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to attempt to remove every single right you own for legal products you legally purchased. When it comes to purchasing media, we are on a long walk of a short pier when it comes to removing consumer rights. The government should not be in the business of handing content providers with these outlandish laws and trade agreements. The government's only role should be in protecting consumers and let the market handle manufacturers. Governments recently in the western world have been taking disturbing authoritarian turns for these special interest groups. At one time, we used to refer to this as corruption but now it's just business as usual. This needs to stop.

What needs to be done is a complete revision of copyright law ensuring consumers some reasonable protection and freedom of use for media they have legally purchased. This would involve the outlawing of Digital Rights Management. Also needed are iron clad fair use laws that allow people to use media in any way for personal uses provided they are not distributing it for financial incentive. As the digital media age progresses, we have slowly lost the rights we once had back in the age of analogue. It's time we take them back. To borrow a line from the skaters, listening to my iPod is not a crime.

read more...

Mostly Hot Air

A write up on Pajamas Media by blogger Mike McNally perfectly illustrates how a lot of skeptics feel about global warming alarmism and how its starting to enter decline. While 2007 was a golden year for global warming, huge cracks have begun to appear in the alarmist debate, which is reaching critical mass. He talks about the vested interest in the system, how skeptics are trying and increasingly succeeding to break out, and how we're wasting our time on AGW issues when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Global Warming: Mostly Hot Air

read more...

Go Blind but Have Great Breasts

I'm a bit slow off the mark with this story since the news has been unusually quiet about it. I had caught the tail end of this on the TV news but I had no idea what they were talking about. The Ontario Liberals have announced that OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) will now cover sex change opperations. I did a double take reading this in the Sun this morning. This is yet another in a string of nonsense plans McGuinty has announced this month. The other two being the cigarette wall coverup and the pesticide ban.

The whole concpet of changing one's sex has always puzzled me. I fail to see why anyone in a right mental state, gay or strait, would want to do this. Even so, though you can make a man look like a woman, he will still be a man so in essence it's just putting lipstick on a pig. I can dress up like Superman for Halloween but that doesn't mean I can leap over tall buildings. To me, this sort of gender confusion comprises a mental illness, not a sexual orientation, and it should be treated as such. The Liberals' choice to cover this is outrageous since it is a gross misuse of medical resources and public money just because some nutter guy wants breasts. Perhaps what makes me particularly mad is the fact that this sort of thing is being put before priority medical treatments. For example, in 2004, the Liberals announced that OHIP would no longer cover the cost of eye exams, which cost the system the princely sum of $80 a visit. I would say that good eye health is critical given that so much of our society and human evolution revolves around us having good sight. Dentistry is another one. It has never been covered by OHIP. Doctors have been saying for years that oral health can have drastic effects on the rest of the body. So essentially, what the Liberals are saying is that it's ok to be blind and have rotten teeth but putting breast implants in a guy and cutting his nuts of is priority.

Once again, I think the Liberals have become vastly out of touch with the society they claim to represent. This is a classic case of putting the issues of a very small minoirty of people before the greater good of society as a whole. Our medical system in this country is in decline and always strapped for cash yet we always seem to find money for this stuff but nothing else. People should be outraged by this and the fact that their not is a sad statement of our society.

read more...

Pot Hypocrisy- Why Medicinal Marijuana Should Go

The marijuana issue has always puzzled me, especially concerning the so called medicinal use of the drug. There are a couple of news stories about it this week. The first concerns an auditor general's report that found Health Canada has been undercharging people for the drug. Another story involves an Oakville bar owner who has so far spent over $20,000 fighting in court because he would not allow a medicinal marijuana user smoke on his property. He said it was bothering other customers. It's illegal to serve intoxicated customers. It is also illegal to allow people to smoke pot in or near bars under the Ontario Alcohol and Gaming Commission's rules but the Human Rights Tribunal says this guy must allow it. Since the human rights people are federal, their ruling trumps the OAGC. 

For many people, marijuana is the drug of choice given that its relatively safe and non-addictive compared to other narcotics. Still, numerous reputable studies have come out showing that smoking pot is as carcinogenic as smoking several cigarettes at once, that it lowers brain power, and lowers sperm counts. It's also an intoxicating substance. The whole irony over the pot debate is how we treat people who smoke tobacco in our society. We rail against cigarette smokers for being dirty. Cigarettes cause cancer and therefore lead to an unjust burden on our health care system. Numerous bans have been put in place to the point where people won't be able to smoke tobacco in their own homes. However, when it comes to marijuana, party down man and let the high times roll. Does pot cause cancer? That's a big check. Does second hand pot smoke bother other people? Definitely. So why does out society treat it differently than cigarettes when it is just as bad as smoking tobacco? I suppose the primary difference if that marijuana is not physically addictive. It's certainly mentally addictive though. I knew people in high school who smoked several joints on a daily basis and "needed" their pot fix to relax. 

One of the big issues though in favour of legalizing pot it the huge amount of money we spend (and some argue waste) on fighting the war on drugs. If it is sold through the government legally, they argue, we won't have the problems we do now with crime associated with drug use. I don't really buy that since all it does is become another huge money maker, and we know that the government regulating tobacco certainly hasn't stopped illegal cigarettes from being sold. 

Now to the topic at hand I originally intended to discuss. Should medicinal marijuana be legal? I don't think it should be. The medicinal benefits of pot are dubious at best. The idea behind it is to give a natural alternative to people in pain who can't take harsher pain killers. We already know it can cause cancer. If someone like Pfizer made a drug that was carcinogenic, which the government knowingly sold, there'd be huge uproar in society. It has happened. You'd have every ambulance chaser from late night TV commercials on them like white on rice. Secondly, I have to question what pain killing properties pot has that a bottle of scotch doesn't. Surely modern medicine could develop a pain killer for people who can't take harder drugs without exposing them and others to the carcinogenic and intoxicating nature of marijuana. We're at the point where even the Netherlands, arguably the pot capital of the world, is beginning to scale back on the drug. Keeping it legal is just a prescription to play Chech and Chong. There is no need for marijuana to be legal, whether it is medicinal or not.

The second issue at hand is whether this is really a human right, as the Human Rights Tribunal is claiming? As far as I know, there is nowhere in the constitution that says people have a right to health care. There is also nowhere that says people have the right to take drugs, legal or otherwise, wherever they want. That's what makes the mentioned bar owner's case particularly obscene. If no right exists, then I have no obligation to allow you to do something on my property which I and my customers don't agree with. If what the lawyers for the marijuana smoker are arguing is true, then all laws preventing people from smoking in buildings would be trumped. I can't honestly see the tribunal making the same ruling if this man arguing against the bar owner were a cigarette smoker instead. There is definitely a double standard between cigarettes and pot in our government, despite them being essentially the same thing. 

read more...

Sorting Through an Economic Mess

I think the history books will remember the 2000s as the being similar to the 1970s. That era was well known in North America for its malaise with the OPEC embargo, the unpopular war in Vietnam, economic recession, Watergate, etc. Right now we're in a bit of a mess that's eerily familiar. The United States is fresh off its sub-prime lending crisis which had been threatening recession for a while. Combined with the high Canadian dollar this caused, we knew out export industries would have some problems. However, federal and provincial governments all assumed Canada could weather the storm if a recession in the US came to be. April truly is the cruelest month given that what's happened in the past 30 days has shattered this assumption. Fuel costs soared throughout April. In Toronto alone, gas prices for regular unleaded shot up 15%. Diesel has seen even greater increases. Canadians on average are paying $1.26 on average for fuel compared to $1.15 a month ago. This means shipping costs are rising dramatically. The move towards ethanol, fuelled by environmentalism and agri-politics has led to massive shortages of staple grains. This has triggered a global food crisis which is even hitting North Americans hard. Unfortunately, it seems that recession now is inevitable and Canada will not be able to weather this storm.

There's really a lot I want to talk about here. We'll start with GM's job cuts due to the ailing auto industry. 900 jobs are being axed in Oshawa, mostly due to high gas prices reducing demands for trucks. Giving the auto industry government handouts is a bad idea in my opinion since it only encourages poor business decisions. GM and the CAW should have seen this coming a mile away but did nothing to combat it. Canada is the most expensive country in the world to produce vehicles. However, if the auto industry does go under, reports from TD indicate that Ontario, once the economic engine of Canada, might become a "have not" province in two years time, comparable to the likes of Newfoundland. This would mean that Ontario would begin receiving billions of dollars in equalization payments. This has been a touchy issue in the past since the big provinces always felt they were getting the short end of the stick on equalization. The National Post also pointed out that this system was never meant to have vast sums of money going to Canada's most populous provinces. This could spell disaster when it comes time to draft federal budgets. Even if the smaller provinces loose their have-not status, it is unlikely they will be able to afford such payments to the likes of Ontario and Quebec, causing political turmoil.

Jim Flaherty was correct in lambasting Ontario recently for not cutting business taxes to encourage investment in the provice. I have long said Dalton McGuinty was an ineffective premier. When he was first elected in 2003, Ontario's economy was going strong and the future seemed bright enough. Even in 2007 when he was reelected, there didn't seem like there would be a sudden economic downturn on the horizon. With three and a half years left in his term, McGuinty is going to have to make some tough decisions. So far, all he has announced is that there will be no cuts to government services, translating to mean no budget cuts. Keynsian economics, on which modern liberalism is based, does say government spending should increase to stimulate the economy. However, there doesn't seem to be any plans to do that. Bail out packages as I have said do not work as they encourage poor decisions. McGuinty has given no clear indication of plans to help the economy other than that. The fact is that Ontario is no longer competitive and it's not the fault of NAFTA or Asian trade but rather stupid mistakes made by our own leaders. You can't simply shut your boarders anymore and hope for the best since no country is self sufficient. You also can't close your eyes and plug your ears in times of crisis and hope the problem simply goes away. Inaction usually breeds the opposite of the desired result.

That's not to say that the federal government has no responsibility in the matter. Like McGuinty, the federal Conservatives seem to have no plans to do anything to curb rampant inflation due to high fuel costs. Kim Campbell rightly noted in an interview with the National Post that Harper has become far too controlling. He's trying to do everything himself rather than relying on the tallents of his MPs. This has led to an unclear agenda as the Conservatives are begining to loose steam. As for the Liberals, Stephane Dion seems to think a carbon tax on gasoline would lower fuel prices, as he noted on an interview with CTV. That logic has holes big enough to drive the Queen Mary 2 through. I can't see how charging more for something would make it cheaper given fuel is an economically inelastic product. That means that as price goes up, demand doesn't change much. This is because fuel is an essential commodity. The NDP I have not heard much from. Jack Layton has been unusually quiet lately at a time where they should be making a fuss. I think the NDP on the federal level has become too much of a bleeding heart party and has forgotten its labour roots. The primary issue is that the Green party has been stealing votes from them, so they now focus on green issues. Unfortunately, green doesn't put food on the table or money in the bank for the average Joe. This mess must be a wet dream for these radical environmentalists though, who have long envisioned a "cooler but poorer" world as being the solution to anthropogenic global warming.
The Liberals are smart though by not pulling the plug on the Conservatives. If an election were to be called in the near future, it would truly end up as a battle royal between the three national parties. None of them have enough support for a majority and at this point, it could go either way. I'm leaning towards another Conservative victory at this point, but it would be by an even tighter margin than in 2006. The time for bickering in the House of Commons is over now. Both the Liberals and Conservatives need to start working together constructively if Canada wants to try and escape the worst of the inevitable recession on the horizon. I'm not an economist so I really can't provide specific suggestions. Right now, the best things to do would be to ban the use of ethanol for fuel as well as cut gas taxes in half at the vary least. This would help ease the pain at the pumps for consumers and businesses.

Clearly something needs to be done. If fuel goes up, that eats into profits of businesses that rely on it. That means wages go down and prices go up. I know for a fact that many people are going to be in serious trouble. Just look at all the people who live off their credit cards and only pay the minimum balance per month. Though I'm usually in favour of government staying out of business, it just can't this time around. Inaction will only breed the worst recession in decades.

read more...

Global Warming Hysteria: Ethanol's Human Cost

Global warming is killing people, but not in the way people like Al Gore and David Suzuki want you to believe. A couple years ago, British documentary the Great Global Warming Swindle noted that environmentalism was an anti-human movement, citing pressure being placed on Africa to adopt green yet inefficient and prohibitively expensive forms of energy generation. Most of the debunkers saw that the mass hysteria of global warming was going to cause some sort of human crisis. However, many of us were surprised by how quickly it happened. 

Not too long ago, biofuel was supposed to be the great saviour since it was said to be cleaner than gasoline and also had the side benefit of cutting our dependency on foreign oil. Originally, biofuel was mostly biodiesel, which is made from old cooking grease. More recent efforts have pushed ethanol as an alternative. Ethanol is an alcohol made from distilling grain such as corn, wheat, rice, etc. It's essentially what is in booze. Rather than being used to make your favorite whisky or sake, corn and rice instead are being made into a pure ethanol solution for car fuel. This is what gives us fuels such as E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) and E85 (85% ethanol) which you can use to fuel your car. E10 fuel is required by law in Ontario. Of course, there's one obvious problem with this. 

In Peru and Colombia, there is a major problem with cocaine. Everybody knows that. Lets take Peru for an example since coca (the plant which cocaine is made from) can be legally grown. There, unprocessed coca leaves are chewed for an energy boost. It has the same effect as drinking Red Bull and is not nearly as potent or addictive as processed cocaine. So why am I talking about coke? Well, coca is a very hardy plant and grows just about anywhere with minimal human involvement. Poor farmers grow it illegally where it is sold to drug cartels, processed into cocaine, and shipped to North America and Europe for consumption. While farmers don't get even a fraction of the final street price, they do make more money than they would by growing food crops. Therefore, illegal coca plantations are a convenient cash crop for poor farmers. The same also bodes true for heroine poppy growing in Afghanistan. 

Growing ethanol grain is similar. It nets the farmer more money. The difference is that due to global warming hysteria, environmentalists have pushed governments to encourage farmers to grow ethanol grain. As if they even needed encouragement since fuel sells for more than than flour. Unfortunately, this saviour of the environment that will magically cut us from oil dependence has caused one of the greatest food crises in sixty years. 

In Asia, there is a major rice shortage. People are rioting in the streets trying to grab any scrap of grain they can get their hands on. For many people, it's forms the bulk of their diet. Similar situations have been seen in Latin America and Africa. Even us here in North America are feeling the pinch as prices at the grocery store rise. CTV described it as a perfect storm. A bad growing season in poor parts of the world has driven prices way up. Also noted was the increasing number of farmers converting their operations to grow grain for ethanol instead of food. Rice and corn are two such grains, which are major staples in the third world. Rather than going into a hungry mouth, that grain is going strait into your gas tank. It's no wonder the third world is so disgusted with the West. It is our fault for putting human lives at risk to solve a non-existent crisis. 

So what do we do to solve this. I think its time to stop beating around the bush. There is absolutely no proof that using ethanol for fuel lowers carbon dioxide emissions. As a fuel, it is also less efficient than gasoline. Laws requiring E10 fuel need to be revoked or at least put on the shelf until this food crisis is over. It would be a crime against humanity not to do so. Mr McGuinty, I'm speaking to you. 

Next, we need to address the problem of how we produce food and fuel. Free trade is needed to keep third world food moving into the West. This will encourage industrialized agriculture and overproduction in those countries. Countries in Africa have been wanting free trade for agriculture with Europe for years. Subsidies to Western farmers have become a road block since our food is actually cheaper and floods third world markets, shutting out their own farmers. International investment and genetically modified foods (drought and disease resistant) could be used to help farmers in less fertile regions to achieve this goal. We have the technology yet we don't share it, especially the boogie man of genetically modified foods. We fear them yet they could make the difference between famine and a bumper crop in many regions. We should encourage Western farmers to produce ethanol since they've long complained about how low their profit margins are. Making ethanol would generate them more money. It's not so much that we stop producing ethanol for fuel but we need to realign how the world does agriculture in order to keep food supplies in balance. Nations need to work together to accomplish this. We can't simply shut our borders on these issues. The United Nations needs to stop worrying about global warming and do something to solve this real crisis. Come to think of it, there is absolutely no reason why we should be using ethanol to begin with. Oil and natural gas are still abundant and hydrogen vehicles are on the horizon. Feeding humans should be top priority and feeding cars should always be secondary. 

read more...

Corporations, Abusing Customers, and the Environment

Today is Earth Day so I thought it fitting to take pot shots at the environmentalists. I thought though that I'd conserve my own energy to "spend less on dinner". In other words, I'm feeling too lazy to write an article when Terrance Corcoran of the National Post does a good job summing up the same argument. Basically, his article deals with how big corporations are jumping on the environmental bandwagon and are now turning to nagging consumers. If you thought these stores treated you like dirt before, the best is yet to come.

Nag Days at the Bay

Environmentalism is PC these days and I suppose they feel the need to do this or else the eco-nuts won't shop there. As if their dollar somehow is worth more than mine. I somehow find it ironic though that these are the same places that run the heat hot as hell in the winter and the AC colder than a witch's teat in the summer. That for hypocrisy for you. I can now add the Bay to my list of insolent retailers that I refuse to shop at. Home Depot and Loblaws were already on there. Lululemon doesn't sound like a store I'd shop at to begin with.

read more...

McGuinty, Miller Out of Touch?

Now is not a good time to go to China, especially if you're a politician. Try telling that to Dalton McGuinty though. I certainly guarantee that if this was Mike Harris doing this, there would be a lot more outrage. Yesterday, McGuinty met with Chinese business people while pro-Tibet protesters marched outside. He snuck out the back door in order to avoid them, something the National Post labeled as shameful. Also in the news is Toronto mayor David Miller's business trip to China. Milton mayor Gord Krantz will be acompanying him, as well as several other GTA mayors. All on the tax payer dollar I might add.

I find it somewhat ironic that left wing politicians in Canada would be so eagar to keep China happy when the right wing is less tolerant. Well, not so much ironic as hypocritical. The left for years has been pressing the rights of minorities in our own country yet when it comes to Tibet, they suddenly become silent. All of a sudden, it seems some cheap lead painted garbage and a bunch of jocks running around in circles is more important than the poor guy getting his head blown off for speaking out against the communist government. Then again, maybe McGuinty and Miller are trying to get some pointers from the Chinese communist party on how to subjegate their own people. I think both McGuinty and Miller are classic examples of weak leadership. They refuse to stand up to the wolf in sheep's clothing and tackle the real issues. Both say they will bring up human rights but the word of the mayor of some backwater city in meek Canada isn't going to have a lot of clout with the communist leaders. If anything, their economic summits should be postponed until at least the olympics are over, if not cancelled entirely. That would show strong leadership, that these two men actually have a backbone. Neither does though and there's ample proof of that with the way they deal with issues in their own jurisdictions.

Speaking of jurisdictions, I have to question whether individual provinces and cities should be making bilateral international deals on their own. Shouldn't international relations, both economic and political be made through the federal government? It seems to me that the feds are the only ones willing to push China on their human rights abuses. Also puzzling is why Kickback Krantz is going considering that the Town of Milton does absolutely no trade with China. The town has almost no manufacturing or natural resource industries. I can't help but think our tax dollars are being used for a summit that amounts to little more than a free vacation for politicians. It also gives Gordie a good opportunity to get out of Dodge after the huge mess he's made in the last five years.

read more...

Stephen King on Game Censorship

Boston's mayor Menino may not be dead but his brain sure is. He's the latest to speak out on the supposed harms of video game violence. This comes on the heels of a Massachusetts law that would ban the sale of violent video games to people under 18. Stores who violate this law would see heavy fines. The king of horror Stephen King though has come out blasting the law. He is concerned about the politicians acting like "surrogate parents". King is quite right. Lazy parents are turning to the government to raise their kids for them, and this sets a dangerous precedent.

You can read the article about King here.

read more...

Carbon Tax Would Hurt Low Income Earners

Perhaps I should go into more detail about why the proposed carbon tax has struck a nerve with me outside of my conservative mindset. Being a university student, I'm a low income earner. I drive a fuel efficient car. Yesterday, I noticed I had less than a 1/4 tank of fuel left. The gas station was selling it for $1.12. Too expensive I said. Unfortunately, the price shows no sign of dropping. Gasoline in itself is currently overpriced by a fair amount. The price spikes are fuelled mostly by speculation of investors, so they're artificially inflated. I remember hearing Liberal MP and gas crusader Dan McTage say it should be around $0.80 - $0.90 per litre given the current market. I realize that $1.12 is not really that expensive given the Canada average today is $1.18. So yes, there are people worse off then us in the GTA. I can still remember freaking out when the gas hit $1.30 after Hurricane Katrina, though fortunately, the company I worked for at the time was paying my gas bill since I was using my own car for business.

So what does this have to do with the proposed carbon tax that many economists are advocating? The answer is simple, everything! As you know, I do not support the anthropogenic global warming argument and in effect, I think taxing carbon emissions would end up doing nothing what so ever in that respect. The problem is that it's not big polluters they want to tax but rather add it to the fuel excise tax on gasoline, which would amount to a minimum of an additional $0.10 per litre. If added to today's price, that would bump up costs to $1.22! For American readers, this would roughly equate to $4.40 per gallon. British Colombia was the first province to enact a carbon tax and it already has some people in the north fuming over rising fuel costs.

What the environmentalists forget is that unless you live in an urban area, public transit is not an option. Even then, it's iffy. Rising fuel costs there have bumped ticket prices up 22% in the last five years for a one-way cash fare. I expect the TTC to raise their fare to $3 by 2009 given their current history. Also, our public transit systems in Canada are probably some of the worst in the first world. Slow, rarely on time, using outdated equipment, and run by unions who threaten to strike every five minutes. For most of us, the car is the better way, and in fact the only way. Yet there has been a march against drivers recently with higher license fees, registration fees, proposed road tolls to lower congestion, higher insurance costs, higher fuel costs. The list goes on. It's quickly getting to the point where many low income earners can't afford to drive. That means they can't get to their jobs, and are therefore out of work. There are also people who drive for a living, such as truckers, who have seen big chunks of their income taken by fuel costs. The cost therefore is added onto the final product, which is why we're seeing food prices spike.

Of course, we all know how the Canadian tax system works. Sure it's a proposed $0.10 now but how long before it's $0.15 or $0.20, which is what some climate hysterics are already demanding. Economists claim that the money will be used to lower personal income taxes so in effect, you're not really paying more. Do these people have no idea how the Canadian government works?! The original gas tax was supposed to go directly to roads and transit but it does not. Everything goes into one giant pot. It's unlikely that Liberal or even Conservative governments will give all the money back to the tax payer. We'd be lucky to get half of it back, if any at all. Besides, if that's the system you want to use, why even institute the tax in the first place. It just makes no logical sense. Then again, little concerning environmentalism and Canadian taxation does.

Carbon taxes do not punish the people driving the Escalades and Hummers because since they can afford those expensive gas guzzlers, they can afford to absorb the extra fuel costs. It's low income earners who will suffer from a carbon tax as fuel prices for their vehicles. I haven't even discussed how this would affect people who use oil and natural gas to heat their homes, because surely they'll be the next target. When does it stop? The proposed carbon taxes would do far too much harm and no good at all. They would effect the lowest income families the most, those that the liberals claim to advocate. The carbon tax is something we should not even be considering.

read more...

Art Spiegelman on Political Correctness

Art Speigelman is well known for his graphic novel Maus, about a Polish Jewish family during the Holocaust. He is in Toronto for a lecture on censorship. An interview with the National Post explains his views on political correctness what it's not just conservatives that need to be concerned about it.

Politically Correct 'Fever' Grips Canada

His lecture is tonight at 7:30pm at Isabel Bader Theater at UofT St. George campus.

read more...

Less for More: Garbage Collection

I've decided to start a new series of articles entitled "Less for More". One of the things I've noticed lately is how our tax bills are on the rise, yet government services that effect the average Joe seem to be on the decline. Coming on the heels of learning that the Ontario civil service "Sunshine" list (those earning more than $100,000) has grown by a huge number, I think that makes this fact more relevant.

This week is garbage collection. Recently, Halton has introduced the green bins, something many other cities have been using. I have to question if these bins really improve the garbage collection service. Here in particular, 2007 was not a good year for picking up trash. In Milton, trash collection has frequently been late. There are many days I've come home to still find my garbage sitting at the curb, only to hear the truck cruise by at dinner time, despite the demand to have your trash out by 7am. Recycle pickup was also infrequent, limited to every two weeks instead of every one, and big item pickups were every two months. Halton made some changes for 2008. Recycle and green bin are once a week now, but garbage is only every two weeks. That leaves smelly bags to fester in the garage. There are also now strict weight limits for the bags of garbage, since we can't have the big garbage men straining themselves to pick up bags my 83 year old Grandma has no problems with. Big pickup has also been limited to just three items. The supposed goal is to reduce the amount of waste heading to the landfills but I don't buy that. As for the green bins, they must have cost the region a bundle to buy them and print out the advertising campaign where it would have likely been cheaper to not introduce them. They were not widely popular in Milton. Further more, the bins require you to use special "biodegradable" bags, which further adds to the home owners expense. Halton has a very high tax rate given its lack of service.

Things get worse if you travel some 30km east of Milton to the centre of the universe, aka Toronto. Toronto has drastically cut back on garbage collection and has introduced a pay-per-bin policy which could add several hundred dollars to your annual bill no matter what you throw out. This obviously punishes larger families and businesses. In the mean time, Toronto has just levied some of the biggest tax increases in its history while the city continues to spend money like it were water on unnecessary expenditures. Of course, what could you expect from the central group of technocrats that huddle around Miller, the NDP showing its hidden totalitarian stripes. Toronto has long avoided dealing with its trash problem, trying to send their garbage (both human and otherwise) to nearby communities or to the US. The mayor and his cronies are afraid to open up a new landfill due to the "harmful environmental effects" it will have. Meanwhile, it's ok to send it to Michigan or other Ontario municipalities at huge expense to the Toronto tax payer where they can suffer the harmful effects. Ironically, I believe that having to pay-per-bin will most likely encourage people to illegally dump their junk, which Toronto already has a big problem with. So in the end, they're not saving their environment.

Taxes go up, service goes down. That's the Canadian way. I think it's time we put municipal leaders at the curb for not addressing one of our societies most basic services.

read more...

Why Canada Should Boycott the Beijing Olympics

In 1980, Canada participated in a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It's ironic in some ways that we'd participate in an invasion of the same country just over twenty years later, though for far different reasons. In 1984, the Soviet bloc boycotted the Los Angeles in Olympics, leading to the best medal year in US history, as the Simpsons famously parodied.

So here we are in 2008 with the Olympics in Beijing fast approaching. China is itself an odd case when it comes to liberty and human rights since nothing is ever black and white. The People's Republic of China (not to be confused with the Republic of China, aka Taiwan) runs the country in a quasi-Orwellian fashion. The government keeps a close eye on people's communications, filters out foreign news, rewrites history, and makes people disappear if they don't comply with the state's rules. Ironically, the PRC has kept up the famous Chinese tradition of petition. China is communist only on paper these days, moving to a sort of capitalistic socialism since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. The government is run by a technocratic oligarchy.

The whole issue with the 2008 Olympics comes over the region of Tibet. Up until 1950, Tibet was an independent nation, though China has always asserted some degree of influence over the nation. This is one of the few things the PRC and the Republic of China can agree on. I find this somewhat ironic since I consider the Republic of China to be an independent state, and what's to stop the PRC from putting it back under its boot heel, given the UN ignores it. I digress. Tibet is a major spiritual capital for the Buddhist religion. Famous exiles include the Dalai Lama. The exiled parliament of the nation currently holds its capital in Dharamsala, India.
China must have been pretty foolish to assume that the Olympics would not draw attention to the country's numerous and flagrant human rights abuses. Riots broke out in Lhasa, the traditional capital of the region, in protest against the Chinese government. The Chinese government shot and killed several protesters, though there are conflicting amounts of just how many. China to the rare position in which they actually admitted they had done it, though I'd be more inclined to believe Tibetan figures than theirs. Without foreign observers, we may never know for sure. In the aftermath, the city has been locked up tighter than Fort Knox. Buddhist monks, who did not participate in the riots, have been put under house arrest. Buddhism follows a principle similar to Ghandi's Satyagraha, the path of non-violent resistance. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stressed this. Many people agree that the Chinese subjugation of the region and the oppression of its people is wrong. China has repeatedly denied that such subjugation exists. Pro-government supporters protesting in Toronto yesterday reiterated that position. With all that has gone on in China lately, as well as in the past such as the infamous Tianamen Square incident (where on this spot, nothing happened) and the bloody Cultural Revolution. The Western World obviously disapproves but will we do anything about it?

Back to the topic at hand about a possible boycott. I think Canada needs to boycott the Beijing Olympics. Not just the opening ceremonies but a total, complete boycott like in 1980. The Canadian government has been repeatedly stressing the human rights issue in China. This has been one of the corner stones of the Harper government. It has been argued that this has led to a chilling of relations between Canada and the PRC. Many argue that a boycott will not do anything to help the situation. I would be inclined to agree but it does serve one purpose, that is to embarrass China during it's finest hour. I also think it would be hypocritical for Canada not to endorse such a boycott given our supposed devotion to human rights causes around the world. The West these days is all talk and no action. What makes China any different, just because we buy a lot of junk from them? China would be foolish to stop exporting its goods to the West because it would lead to its own economic destruction, given that much of the progress made relies on manufacturing and global business. Another common argument against a boycott is that it would be unfair to the athletes who have trained for years for the games. That is a rather selfish position from supposedly caring and good liberal Canadians. No matter how much they've suffered and sacrificed to train and excel, I can guarantee the Tibetan people have suffered more under the Chinese boot. Tibet is only one such example of people poorly treated under this regime. In retrospect, it was a very poor decision for the IOC to give the Olympics to China. Toronto should have been given the games. Though I did not support their bid back then, since I believed they could not pull it off (given their current financial situation, I was right), they were second place. The IOC however has a long line of questionable decisions behind it.

In conclusion, if Canada truly believes what it preaches to the world about human rights, we should have a complete and total boycott of the Olympic in Beijing. Lets establish ourselves as a world power by being the only nation brave enough to stand up to the red dragon and say "enough"!

read more...

Earth Hour a Publicity Stunt

I remember way back when WWF meant a good smack down. Global warming shares a lot in common with pro wrestling, namely for showmanship and the fact that it's fake. The Luddites are at it again. The latest publicity stunt by a certain animal rights group wants us to turn all our lights off at 8pm on March 29th for an hour. It's been dubbed "Earth Hour". Supposedly turning all our lights off is going to save the planet. This certain group was originally created to preserve animal habitats but I guess they've been loosing publicity due to GW so have decided to hop on the bandwagon. How does one get attention in this day and age? Bring up GW of course. Earth Hour is nothing more than a publicity stunt that's more transparent than grandma's underwear. It does give me the opportunity though to find out which people on my street are utter morons. Personally, I intend to have my house lit up like the Griswalds' Christmas in protest. Toronto hopes 1 million people will join in but recent unscientific polls show that's not the case. 64% of CTV (liberal bias) viewers said they don't think the event will have any effect. A whopping 80% of Toronto Sun (conservative bias) readers said they would not participate. This gives me some hope that there is at least a majority of people in this world with their heads screwed on right. People smart enough to separate truth from brainwashing.

I really don't see how abandoning technology for an hour would do anything, even if global warming was real. Especially in Toronto where the vast majority of our electricity comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power, which don't emit carbon exhaust. Let the Luddites freeze in the dark for an hour, looking like fools. I'll be sitting here in the toasty warm glow of my electric lights, chilling with a couple video games, a hot cup of tea from my electric kettle, and my favourite albums.

read more...

Are Study Groups Cheating? Ryerson Says Yes

Today, Ryerson university decided not to expel a first year engineering student for hosting a Facebook study group that was allegedly used by students to cheat on assignments. However, the university is still imposing academic penalties on the student, who will loose 20% of his year over this fiasco. You can read more details in the newspapers. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this student has grounds for a lawsuit to get his 20% back. The whole incident also exposes who far behind the most "progressive" institutions are in this country.

Sites like Wikipedia and Facebook are popular among university students. The latter is a social networking site. Recently, many students have been setting up Facebook study groups to discuss notes and assignments without actually having to meet. Gone are the days of the long hours in the small rooms at the library, though universities haven't seemed to realize that yet. I don't use social networking sites, but I can't side with the university on this issue. It's absolutely ridiculous and a colossal waste of time on Ryerson's part. How is such a group any different from the students meeting at the library and working on the assignment together? According to them, this is cheating too but those groups aren't the ones being attacked. It's also worth noting that this particular student had only started the group and wasn't responsible for the posts in question. Seems to me he is just being made the black sheep. In my opinion, no academic offense was committed here. The university acted irresponsibly and should be made to reimburse this student's year, the money he spent fighting this, plus extra for them having sullied his good name. The whole issues just shows how technologically backwards today's academic institutions are in this day and age. Sure, they have all the latest gear but they're scared to death of it, and are hysterical students will use it to cheat. I think acts like this are punishing the majority for a small handful of people who would have cheated whether the technology was there or not.

read more...

Full Metal Ignorance: Afghanistan is not Vietnam

Anti-war protesters, though with the best intentions, are quite misguided on the subject of the war in Afghanistan. The idea comes from the unwinable war that was Vietnam and that Afghanistan and Iraq are the same things. Lets forget Iraq for now and focus on the conflict Canada is involved in. Each time one of our soldiers is killed over there, there is a great deal of outcry about Canada being there in the first place. It stems from this idea that Canada is a peacekeeping nation, which simply is not true. In fact, Canada has been involved in comparatively few peacekeeping missions. We went in there as a response to 9/11. Canadians were killed on that day, and that was a legitimate act of war. The Taliban were the primary supporters of Al Qaida and hence, that was the belligerent nation responsible for the attacks. Some seven years later and the war continues long after the main fighting has ended. Are we really in a doomed circled of never ending violence as the anti-war people say or are we legitimately doing good? I say no to the first and yes to the second. First of all, wars simply do not end when the major fighting stops. World War 2 on it's grand scale took almost fifty years to be fully resolved after it officially ended in 1945. You can't honestly expect to go into a country and then just leave. That would be irresponsible and a crime against humanity.
Canada's main role right now is reconstruction in the most volatile Kandahar region. We are training their army and teaching them to build infrastructure in hopes that they will be able to regain full control soon. Remember that this country was a mess before we went to way with them. Arguable, the Taliban represented one of them most brutal and oppressive tyrannies that mankind has ever known. If we leave now, not only do we put years of progress down the drain, we risk condemning the Afghan people back to tyranny. This is not about imperialism or pushing western values on their culture. This is about human rights. Of course we all want the troops home as soon as possible but the anti-war people need to realize that this stuff doesn't happen over night.

read more...

Green Hysteria = Tax Revenue Gold

I opened up the paper this morning and was met by yet another story on global warming. This one disgusted me more than most since the fears of many GW debunkers are coming true. BC has become the first government in North America to institute the much dreaded carbon tax. Who will pay this tax? Not businesses but you, the ordinary citizen. Namely motorists and those who heat their houses with hydrocarbon fuels such as oil and natural gas. In other words, most BC residents will be footing this bill. The tax will be set at $10 a tonne of carbon dioxide, increasing the price of gas another 2.4 cents per liter. As you probably know, BC already has some of the highest gas prices in the country. They play to increase the tax to $30 over the next five years. They gave an example of a person driving a pickup truck $40,000 a year. This is a typical vehicle a construction worker or trades-person would drive. The tax alone would add another $500 to their fuel bill. I find that utterly outrageous. What makes this more upsetting is other provinces, particularly with less cool headed liberal governments will likely follow suit. Quebec is already talking about instituting a tax.

BC Finance Minister Carole Taylor said "We promised you green and today we deliver green." Noting that "This is an important turning point for B.C., and we think for Canada because we are out in front on this," she said, suggesting the new tax could raise up a new "social movement." So basically, this social movement means that already overtaxed Canadians will have to stretch their budgets even further in order to pay for a problem that does not exist? This is just another blatant cash grab by left wing governments looking for any excuse in the book to tax their citizens further. What makes this particularly outrageous is legions of people, brainwashed by the lies of the global warming people, will buy into it and gladly pay. This needs to stop NOW. I personally refuse to pay any carbon tax, regardless of the consequences, because I feel that the government should not be using fraud to extort even more money for citizens. This is wrong and yet nobody can see it. Global warming is the biggest money making scam since the Papal indulgences of the 16th century. Scamming lower class people to pay for lavish expenditures. At least one man was smart enough to stand up and say that was wrong. Where is the Martin Luther of global warming?

Source: National Post

read more...

Family Day Fraud

Back during the 2007 provincial election, I laughed at McGuinty's Family Day. Well, it's now coming up this Monday and a lot of debate is stirring over it. 40% of Ontarians will not be getting it off. As for myself, it replaces an existing holiday that was scheduled before Family Day was announced. So technically, I don't consider myself as getting Family Day off.

The issue was first brought up by the Toronto police services who noted that they were the only people on city staff who would not be getting the holiday. Other people not getting the day off include contracted union workers, retail staff, and many others in the private sector. Businesses had little time to prepare and adjust contracts so a lot of people have either the choice of working or not getting paid. The holiday itself is corrupt in its nature. It was brought up when McGuinty was starting to dip in the polls as a vote buying measure. A number of foolish Canadians seem to have bought his game but for the rest of us, tough luck. It seems to me to be more of a holiday for civil servants and school teachers. This group of people already gets more time off than anybody else. Days they get off that nobody else does include Remembrance Day, Boxing Day, the day after New Years, and Christmas Eve. Now they have one more to add to this longest list. I think we should give Family Day the boot. I personally refuse to celebrate a holiday that was created for purely corrupt political reasons. To me, it makes more sense to add a holiday in June instead of the middle of winter, since what's there to do in February?

read more...

David Suzuki: To Protect Planet, End Democracy

If you're Canadian, chances are you're familiar with David Suzuki. He hosts the low rated CBC nature show "The Nature of Things". He also has a doctorate in genetics and holds the Order of Canada. Recently, he's become a very controversial figure due to his increasingly radical views on climate change. While on a university tour recently, Suzuki remarked at the University of Toronto that politicians who fail to act against climate change should be jailed. In his opinion, failure to act is a crime. A Freudian slip maybe? No, he reinforced the remark again while speaking at McGill. His publicist noted that his remarks should not be taken literally. I'm curious how they are meant to be taken though.

These remarks remind me of the movie Being John Malcovich, since it allows us to walk inside the reads of the radical environmental left. We'll take the assumption that his jail comment wasn't to be taken literally but it does show us one important factor. That being that Suzuki feels that democracy is harming his cause, and in order to stop that, we must eliminate democracy. If a democratically elected official does not agree with our agenda, then me must make him/her "disappear". We've long been joking that denial of global warming has become equated to denial of the holocaust, but it seems like people such as Suzuki are making that closer to a disturbing truth. Terry O'Neill of the National Post wrote "We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki's "lock 'em up" rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we "celebrate our differences," there's a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent "human-rights" prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn't agree. It's only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. " Due to how weak the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is on ensuring our Section 2 rights, I would tend to agree.

I refer to people like Suzuki as eco-fascists. I don't use fascist to only define right-wing since I believe there are left wing fascists. Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao Zhedong, and Kim Jong Il are perhaps the best known. It's becoming increasingly totalitarian and it's almost taking on a religious mantra. It would not be an issue if there weren't sizable portions of the population taking people like Suzuki seriously. The issue has come to dominate the left, yet at the same time is rejecting nearly everything the left wing supposedly stands for in the west. The deniers need to begin protesting and becoming more vocal, to stand up to radicals like Suzuki. Let them know that they are wrong and their trash is no longer going to be tolerated. No liberty, no green.

read more...

Afro-Centric Schools: TDSB's Jim Crow

It's ironic on the month that people in the US are celebrating his life, Dr Martin Luther King Jr must be turning in his grave. On Tuesday night, the Toronto District School Board, in an 11-9 vote approved of afro-centric schools. The pilot project will begin with three schools in September 2009. It's ironic that this decision was made by a socialist board that vocally advocated egalitarianism in every other issue.

This whole thing just boggles the mind. So we're going to take black kids out of the regular schools, place them in a school with only black kids, then put them in the real world back with everybody else and hope they do okay? Mind you, the United Stated ran a similar program in the south-east. Unfortunately, the program was ended in the 1960s due to those racist civil rights activists who demanded that black people shouldn't receive special treatment. The difference here is that all kids can go to these schools, in theory. In reality, we know that parents of children of other races will not likely enroll their kids in an afro-centric school.

The message I'm getting from the TDSB is that black kids are indeed inferior to kids of other races. This is why they need special treatment focusing on their special needs. It's almost as it the TDSB is dealing with bunch or retards. This plan reeks of Jim Crow even though it was developed with the best of intentions. As the old adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Not only is this "un-Canadian" in our supposedly multi-cultural society, the big question now is where does it stop? Will we now have to have Asian based schools, or Indian based schools? John Tory was chastised by the Liberals in the last provincial election for wanting to bring public funding to religious schools. Now the TDSB brings public funding to race based schools and the Liberals seem to be okay with it. This once again exposes McGuinty as the weak leader he is. If he truly practiced what he preached in the last election, the province would have shut this plan down as soon as the vote was tallied. McGuinty has said he will not allow these schools to open in any other boards but that does not go nearly far enough.

Once again, the afro-centric schools are a left wing band-aid solution to a major problem. As I have said, the problem I believe with black youth is internal to their own culture. Just ask people like Bill Cosby who has been saying that for years but usually gets ignored or called an "elitist". They've bought into this lie, developed by their own people no less, that they are unable to compete with whites due to systematic racism. These schools only further reinforce such a lie. To not live in the ghetto, poor and uneducated is not the "black way". Afro-centric schools don't help because the real world is not Afro-centric. It doesn't matter if the black person ends up working for a white person, or an Asian, or an Indian. Your culture means squat when you get out into the actual working world. I really don't see how these schools are going to serve these kids, or ensure their success after graduation. They may reduce dropouts, but they're setting them up for unrealistic expectations in the future. Only the black community can solve it's internal problems and these schools are not part of that solution.

read more...

Things I've Learned About the Environment

After much study into this whole environment thing, I've managed to compile a list of things I've learned about it, and how truly catastrophic global warming is. I thought I'd share them with the blogosphere in one handy dandy compressed form.

1. Al Gore is not a scientist, serially...
-Shocking. Despite his seemingly prophetic insight into planetary climate cycles, Al Gore does not hold a science degree. Mr. Excelsior does hold a BA in government though from Harvard. People who go to Harvard automatically know everything, like Pierre Trudeau. Turdeau (oops, Trudeau, Freudian slip) didn't make a movie though. People who make movies are basically living gods.

2. The scientific method is only a loose set of guidelines...
-Rules are meant to be broken. The scientific method is just a guideline, like the speed limit or that sign that says "high voltage". Having your hypothesis disproved is not a major failure, just make up a new one to fit. Warmer oceans make more hurricanes, no wait, less, no wait more...

3. Fear will keep the outlying systems in line, fear of this crisis...
-Lemmings don't really jump off cliffs like you see in cartoons. People on the other hand do. If you scare people enough, with perhaps doomsday, they'll follow you like a deer caught in the headlights. 2008 will be a good year for the IPCC Empire. It has seen the end of GW Bush and will soon see the end of the rebel alliance, of deniers.

4. Come to the dark side, we have cookies.
-I recently discovered I was the spawn of Satan. I live in the suburbs, drive a non-hybrid car, shop at Wal-Mart, vote Conservative, and I "deny" global warming. I'm public enemy number one on Greenpeace's blacklist. Well, at least I hope I am. You haven't really made your mark on the world without having a price on your head. In the mean time, I want my Sith name to be Darth Denego, lord of denial. Bow before your master. [shocks Al Gore with Force Lightning]

5. Let's see: Tide...Cheer...Bold...Biz...Fab...All...Gain...Wisk...
-A clean mind is a happy mind. If you want people to believe the "truth", bombard them with it 24/7. They'll be happily brainwashed before long. If not, you can imprison them in the Miniluv for some "special rehabilitation" and a full frontal lobotomy. Make sure to get them while they're young too. Barney says you should poor sugar in your parents' car's gas tank. Those mean ol' polluters.

6: SILENCE! You're talking too loud...
If you don't like what people are saying about you or your theories, the best way to deal with them is to shut them up. Discredit them by dragging their good name through the dirt, even if they are right, or just outright make them "disappear". Stalin knew this. Science isn't about debating things anyway. They're always right.

7. Money = √Evil
I remember reading somewhere that Greenpeace made $1 billion last year. That's a hefty chunk of change for a non-profit group who's members look like that homeless guy who was living under the Gardiner Expressway. These are the same people who rail the deniers for receiving funds from the oil companies. GW is big business. By the way Exxon, where's my Cheque?

8. Maybe I'll make a movie. A movie starring me. Then people will take me super serial...
-Speaking of money, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" raked in $50 million world wide since its release. According to the IMDB, it placed only seventh out of the most searched documentaries in the last week. Ironically, One Night in Paris placed first. I think it had a more believable story and better acting. Maybe Gore should go back to his search for ManBearPig. He's had more luck finding him than finding the truth about GW.
Well, as I said, people in movies and or on TV are near gods. Just ask David Sazuki who's low rated CBC nature show qualifies him to talk in depth about climatology. Anything ending in -ology though must mean the person is correct about everything, like Tom Cruise and his Scientology.
Also, has anybody noticed a dramatic decline in Discovery's science news program Daily Planet. I thought that show was about science, not fiction? Shouldn't it be moved to the Comedy Network?

9. I enjoy a nice steam bath in the sauna after a good workout...
-The local news likes to show pictures of "smoke" rising from the Stelco plant in Hamilton in order to illustrate pollution, or smog, or global warming. If anybody bothered to learn how steel is made, they'd know it's plain old steam, not smoke. Water is used to quench the hot steel and Stelco needs lots of it. Last time I checked, steam was made of water, not CO2, and water evapourates into big clouds when it gets hot.

Well there you have it. Nine things I've learned in my studies. Message to GW fanatics. You may now feel free to send me hate mail. I can guarantee your opinion will get as much respect from me as mind does from you.

read more...

Put A Stop to 24hr Shopping

A lot of the big box stores not are going 24hrs. Got a hankering to fix your deck at 3am? Hop on over to the building supply store. Wal-Mart is open 24/7 for those who need to but an HDTV to watch the graveyard shift TV shows. This is certainly an interesting trend but its definitely having some major ramifications on society. As the world moves at a faster and faster pace, it seems like we need to be in demand at all hours of the day, every day of the year. As was argued in the Sun a couple of weeks ago, this 24hr shopping is harming us as a society because we're moving at a pace we're not designed for.

Then there are the other consequences. Crime and labour issues. Both are connected. Here in Milton, when shops began to open 24hrs, there was an increase in robberies. The old A&P was robbed less than a week after opening 24hrs. These stores are a magnet for crime since the tills are open but there are no witnesses in the store. People working the graveyard shift are usually naive teenagers who these criminals easily take advantage of. Continence stores and gas stations that are open late have always been the target of robberies. Why would Wal-Mart or the grocery store be any different in such circumstances? The issue with labour comes when these kids get hurt in the robberies, such as a young Quebec woman who was killed in a gas station robbery a couple years ago while she was working the graveyard shift.

I think it's time we looked at ourselves as a society. We need to slow down. No store needs to be open 24hrs a day. There's just not enough people doing shift work that justifies it. All these places do is attract crime. I think we need to ban 24hr shopping. That way, stores and the people who work in them won't be easy targets for would be criminals.

read more...

Handgun Bans a Band-aid Solution

Big news in Toronto. Somebody got shot. Another innocent bystander, allegedly. That's two in a week. Once again, Dave is offering up another tall glass of his genuine Miller red. Want to stop gun crime? Why ban handguns of course. I've never been a big fan of guns. I don't own a gun, but I don't feel that banning them is the answer. It's just another typical liberal/socialist, quick fix, band-aid solution to a much larger problem.

My main issue with a handgun ban is that it ignores the basic reality of gun crime. That is that the vast majority of guns on the street are smuggled into Canada from other countries, most notably but not limited to the US. Miller et al like to claim that the majority of guns used in crimes have been stolen from legitimate gun owners, which simply isn't true. If this were the case, then these thefts are going unreported. I would estimate that stolen guns probably account for less than 10% of all guns used in crime, while legally registered guns probably account for less than 1%. Millers on a rant because one of the shootings in the past week or so was used by a legally registered firearm. So for him, all responsible gun owners who register their weapon, properly store it, and don't abuse it (the majority) should be punished because one person does something stupid. I don't really think this is so much of public safety issue but rather Miller up on his socialist soapbox again trying to force his beliefs on everyone else.

Gun crime continues for two reasons. First of all, it's very easy to smuggle weapons into Canada. There have been several stings at Pearson Airport alone in recent years that have uncovered massive amounts of drugs and weapons being smuggled into the country by the airport's own employees. Supposedly, it's so easy, one can simply mail a gun to Canada, no questions asked. The borders definitely need to be tightened to prevent this. Unfortunately, our border guards are more interested in making sure law abiding Canadian citizens are paying tax through the nose on goods they bought down south rather than making sure dangerous goods/people aren't getting in. Border guards and customs officials in this country are no more than glorified tax collectors. Half of them are students hired for the summer, and the majority of them are poorly trained. Our government needs to stop concerning itself with how much money it can squeeze out of its citizens and needs to start focusing on protecting us better.

The next issue, as brought up by Community Safety Minister Stockwell Day has to do with manditory sentences for gun crime. The law is there to stop gun crime but once again, the courts are the weakest link with their "hug-a-thug" attitudes. It's no wonder these people don't think twice. Half of these people in gangs who commit gun crime consider the law to be no more than a casual nuisance rather than something to be afraid of. They shoot somebody, they go to jail for a couple of yeas, they're back on the street, business as usual. Canada's justice system is a revolving door for dangerous offenders. I would say at least 10 years minimum for using a gun in a crime, preferably life. Judges need to realize that their primary duty is protecting people, not voicing their politics and not even rehabilitation. The only way we're going to to reduce gun crime and prevent us from turning into a "wild west" as has happened in US cities is to clamp down hard. Zero tolerance.

One final point has to deal with another obvious flaw in a handgun ban. These same liberals who want to legalize certain illegal narcotics aren't even using their same logic for guns. If the government regulates it, we'd be better off, right? Banning handguns won't stop anything. People will just continue to use black market weapons, use rifles and sawed off shotguns, or switch to knives and other melee weapons. As I said, there has to be zero tolerance. Clamp down on smuggling and make sentences stiff.

read more...

More Grounds to Remove McGuinty from Office

An article in the Toronto Sun has suggested that Dalton McGuinty and several top cabinet ministers were directly involved with the slush fund scandal. This time, it has to do with $15 million of taxpayer money he gave to a Jewish organization, who's leader also happens to be wealthy and a top Liberal party member. Seems Ontario could have its own mini sponsorship scandal. It's unfortunate that this stuff didn't come out in the last election.
Of course it's in the Sun, which isn't exactly the world's best news source, but it does raise some questions.

With all the lies, deceit, and broken promises, why is McGuinty still premier? With record low turnout, neither McGuinty, nor any of the other provincial leaders, are legitimate. I think it's time a prompt and full public inquiry was called to investigate the Liberals, followed immediately by a general election.

read more...

YCJA Unconstitutional

First post in some time. Unfortunately, this one begins on a sad note but also deals with the theme of censorship that I frequently discussed in 2007. Toronto's first homicide of the year saw a young, 14-year old girl stabbed and left for death in a snow bank. The accused killers are a 15-year old girl and her 17-year old boyfriend. At this point, these two have not been tried and details about the murder are yet to emerge in court. However, my point here is that the Youth Criminal Justice Act of 2001 is failing victims and Canadians as a whole. Furthermore, I believe it to be unconstitutional.

In Canada, youth under 18 are protected from adult sentencing and having their identities released to the public. The goal of the YCJA was to protect young people who make mistakes such as stealing a car or taking drugs. I think the majority of Canadians agree that young people make mistakes and shouldn't have their names forever dragged through the dirt for trivial issues. The problem comes when the same treatment is applied to youths who commit violent crimes such as armed robbery, assault, attempted murder, and murder. Such crimes are not mistakes and you can't honestly tell me these kids didn't know what they were doing. Youths convicted of these crimes will only go to jail for a maximum of five years in a youth facility. Most will not see the inside of a prison. Furthermore, they are entitled to a full university education at these facilities worth up to $100,000, courtesy of the tax payer. What makes the latter infuriating is the huge number of law abiding youths struggling to pay tuition and student loans. The newspapers have dubbed this the "hug-a-thug" attitude. It seems in general that our justice system, judges in particular, are not taking violent crime seriously.

The last straw for this unjust law is the fact that the YCJA is unconstitutional. It violates Section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section that guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Shielding youth who commit violent acts such as cold blooded murder is not a reasonable limit on Section 2b. The public has the inalienable right to know who these people are in order to protect themselves, especially from violent youths who have a high risk of re-offending. Any justice who tells you otherwise should be immediately removed from the bench. Once again, judges are the weakest link. This is blatant censorship by the justice system. A system that has a long track record of not fully disclosing its practices. The goal here is not to expose youths who have made the mistakes, those who have summary convictions. Those who knowingly commit indictable, violent crimes are a whole other story.
While on this topic, I'd like to discuss the failure of the media as well. If they know the names of these youth, it is their duty as responsible journalists to report them no matter what punishment the government has for it. The fact that the media is complying with this unconstitutional law only shows how apathetic, partisan, and weak journalism has become in this country.

I doubt any of this will change soon. The justice system is filled with hardcore liberals who use their position on the bench as their own political soapbox. Anybody who thinks judges in Canada are impartial is only fooling themselves. Once again I reaffirm my past proposal for a non-political, civilian body of inquiry that reviews questionable decisions of judges. Furthermore, the same body should be in charge of appointing and confirming judges in order to avoid patronage and politics from entering the courtroom. This is how things are done with the Supreme Court in the United States.
Lastly the YCJA needs to be completely scrapped and replaced. The new act should include mandatory adult sentences for youth who commit violent crimes. The act also needs to remove the censorship aspect for those who commit indictable crimes.

read more...