The new breed of rebel

It's funny how quickly the politics in this country have shifted. When you think of a "rebel," or someone who is anti-establishment, I'm sure your mind drifts to an image of a joint-smoking, bell bottom-wearing, peace sign-flashing hippie, holding up an angry sign and screaming at "the man." Or perhaps you picture a loud-mouthed, bra-burning feminist, screaming at all men. Either way, you probably picture a left-wing "radical." But are these people really the "rebels" anymore?

I would argue that the establishment has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Now the ones who are fighting to speak freely are the right-wing loudmouths. We're the ones demanding our rights. Free Mark Steyn called me an "anti-Trudeaupian rebel." Flattering and all, but this label really made me think. Am I the rebel? I mean, yeah tons of lefties have called me a facist for disagreeing with their ways of thinking. But just think about that concept for a second. I'M a facist for not thinking the popular way? The way that's insisted upon by most government officials, professors and people on the street?

It's the conservatives, young and old, who have smartened up and are now urging change. Some are being forced to fight "the man" relentlessly to maintain their rights: Levant, Steyn, Shaidle, and more... Maybe it's time for us to re-evaluate our definition of the word "rebel," and who we assumes fits that title.

You reds can protest and petition all you like. You can dress in wide-leg jeans and Palestinian-inspired scarves and drink overpriced organic coffee until the poison-farting cows come home. But it's time to own up and admit it:

YOU'RE THE MAN, man.

Suicide bomber has a "baby-face"

An article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald today describes, in what seems to be heartfelt detail, reporter Scott Taylor's interview with 14-year-old Taliban terrorist, Yasim Shakirullah. After several prison guards and interpreters, who are described as being harsh and unnecessarily mean to the young terrorist in order to get him to speak, yell at him, he finally stutters his name and some answers to Taylor's questions. All the while, he is shaking and crying and timidly expressing that he just wants to go home and see his family (according to the article, his mother still doesn't even know where he is). The poor, poor mummy. All she did is enroll her illiterate 13-year-old child in a madrassa, where he learned the Qu'ran back to front in 6 months. Before he could complete his studies in the madrassa and "go home to see his family," he had to go blow up a celebration in Afghanistan with a car bomb.

According to the kid, he didn't want to be there, and it was a surprise when he was scheduled to go drive a car--containing a bomb that would be detonated by one of his "educators" from a remote surrounding--into a highly-populated building, after just two driving lessons. Details about how the plan was discovered were kept confidential from Taylor. The article portrays the kid, in vivid detail, as the victim in the situation.

He may well be the victim. After reading the article, I was sort of torn. While the reporting itself is kind of biased and sappy, it brings to attention the fact that these religious extremists will go to any extent to acheive their terrifying, fanatic goals. The use of young children (in the article, Shakirullah seems to have been brainwashed and/or lied to), for one. They teach these kids the Qu'ran and how to derive the most violent, extreme meanings from the text in order to kill, kill, kill, in under half a year--even if the kid couldn't read during month one. Then they teach them how to drive in two days. The rate at which they are breeding fresh, new terrorists is very alarming. If the kid dies, great. 72 virgins for him, and instant wipe-out for a nice, substantial chunk of society. And if he gets caught, whatever, he'll probably get out of jail soon anyway. Or they can just train a new one, pronto. Consider that 50 kids were trained at the same time as Shakirullah in the madrassa, and then consider how many madrassas there are in the middle east...that's a big number of suicide-bombers-to-be, in a very short amount of time.

But maybe the kid was lying. Maybe he was told what to say, if he was ever interviewed by an easily-convinced Westerner. Very likely, and 50% of me thinks for sure this is the case. But, like I said, maybe he is innocent, and was simply used as a weapon in the Taliban's digusting plot. Regardless, if he does get his wish and returns home to his wonderfully nurturing mother, she'll probably either convince him to kill, kill, kill in his own way, or send him back to a violence-promoting madrassa to be brainwashed, like the first time.

This story is either really sad and digustingly scary, or just plain digustingly scary. If the latter is the case, it's okay, because he has a "baby face." If it's the former, well, that's just sickening. And I'm hardly surprised.

Coren takes a "marxist moment" to expose Massa

Oh my gosh, hilarious.

Gilary Massa is either kicking herself now for being a loudmouthed, bigoted twit...or she's relishing in the attention from the undoubtedly long line of leftist "childish bores who act like robotic caricatures" that now constitute her following.

.....
"Explaining the Israel obsession Massa continued, "This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students' rights to organize. Universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult questions should be promoted, not stifled."

Quite so. Quick rewind to the same commissar's opinions about students on university sites arguing against abortion. "What is happening is anti-choice groups coming on to campus under the guise of debates or through student clubs, to promote anti-choice sentiments."

What you mean you dunderhead is that pro-life kids and speakers whom they invite are giving their opinion on the abortion issue. You and your gang don't like their point of view so you're banning them, just as pro-life groups have been banned in half a dozen other colleges in the country.

You do, however, like anti-Israel groups and speakers because the fashion among empty-headed leftists is to hate Israel. Abortion good, Israel bad. Gay marriage good, Christians bad. Cuba good, United States bad. And so on and so on.

To a large extent, of course, these under-achievers are irrelevant. Like most student leaders, they will go on to lives as accountants and property developers.

They are childish bores who act like robotic caricatures. But they are able to make life unpleasant for other young men and women who are entitled to something other than political and social oppression, particularly when taxpayers -- their moms and dads -- are funding a large part of the whole enterprise. Just a thought -- while I'm still allowed."
.....

Damn skippy.

(another) Update: A petty attempt to silence the Heartbeat

A brief update, for new readers: The student union groups on many Canadian college and university campuses have attempted to silence pro-life groups/societies by stripping them of their rights to even function as a group, denying them funding and 'group status'. This has become a particularly hot issue on the York University campus, where Vice President of the York Federation of Students, Gillary Massa, has been tirelessly fighting to deny the campus pro-life group, "York's Students for Bioethical Awareness," of their freedom of speech.

After reading up a little bit more on this issue, I discovered this:

--> Jonathan Roth, president, Campus Coalition of Zionists, York University, wrote a letter to the NP:

"As a York University student I was not surprised to learn of the York Federation of Students' most recent attempt to stifle free speech -- a proposal to ban student clubs opposed to abortion. Although Robert J. Tiffin, York's vice-president of students, says he is "disappointed" by the policy, he adds that denying students access to the various aspects of the abortion debate is "not in keeping with the school's mandate."

I'm not convinced he believes this. In fact, Mr. Tiffin failed to take action when informed that university administrators had banned the pro-Israel Campus Coalition of Zionists from conducting events on campus. That decision sparked a complaint that is now before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

With York's administration suppressing free speech, it's little wonder that the school's student government is also headed in the wrong direction."


--> Gillary Massa is a muslim, who wears a hijab religiously. This is rather odd, as Kathy points out, because muslims are anti-abortion. However, Ms. Massa seems to be following suit according to recent developments in the community.


--> Gillary Massa wrote a letter to the York U admin, not too long ago. Here it is, for your viewing pleasure. CONTRADICTION WARNING!
"The York Federation of Students (YFS), representing 45000 undergraduate students and the Graduate Students (GSA) at York University representing 5,700 students, are shocked and dismayed to hear that your administration along with the McMaster Students Union has banned the use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” on campus.

This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students’ right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geo-political questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing intellectual exchange.

The YFS and GSA strongly support the United for Students’ Rights (U4SR) coalition at McMaster in their demand that the disgraceful ban on the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” be rescinded in accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in the democratic context of the public university."


More proof that Canadian universities are not the beacons of free thought, speech and liberal education that students sign on for. I'm pissed!

I like you too, Brassballsradio

Wendy's doing this was super nice.

My posting it here is just shameless self-promotion.



(www.brassballsradio.com)

Shooting up BC's tax dollars (and moral sanity)

Canada's lovely province of British Columbia is now the home of North America's first legal injection site: a safe haven where junkies can go and legally shoot up their illegal drugs in a cushy location, under the supervision of doctors and nurses, safe from the laws that hold our country together. Insite is located in downtown Vancouver, and over 1 million injections have already been made at the site since it's grand opening in 2003. I wonder if there was a ribbon-cutting ceremony...

While the federal government attempted to close this "safe" site down, on the grounds that the drugs in question (cocaine, heroine and crystal meth) are dangerous and would not benefit the greater good in a democratic society, Judge Ian Pitfield of the BC Supreme Court went above Parliament and made the decision to allow Insite to remain open. According to Judge Pitfield, drug addicts deserve the same medical treatment as tobacco smokers and alcoholics (which, last time I checked, they are given). Tobacco and alcohol, though dangerous and addictive in many cases, are hardly on the same plane as crystal meth. Not to mention the fact that many Canadian cities are now being deemed "smoke-free." Now, I'm not sure of Vancouver's stance on this issue, but if Vancouver is a smoke-free city--as in, no smoking in public/private establishments--this would mean that there is a legal site in the city for people to go shoot up heroine, a highly-addictive and often fatal drug, but no place for people to have a cig. I am by no means an advocate of smoking, and I think the smoke-free initiatives are fantastic, but that is just insane!

Advocates of Insite were both shocked and thrilled with the judge's ruling. They can't wait to go shoot up with no repercussions!

.....
"Judge Pitfield concluded the national law blocked addicts from a health care facility that could reduce or eliminate their risk of death from an overdose or from contracting an infectious disease, thereby violating their right to life and security."
.....

Perhaps this could eliminate their chance of death from an overdose or contracting disease, two of the scariest repercussions of doing the drug. So why not do it now?! Totally safe. Totally legal. And although Insite may be a magical place for addicts--one that reduces the risk of overdose death and so on--it certainly does not reduce the risk of death from doing the drug in the first place. In my opinion, it encourages it.

The first thing I thought when I read this article is that Insite will undoubtedly encourage new and recovering users to either try or get back on their illegal drug of choice. I mean, the place is free; you can't get arrested; you have pros their showing you how to do it; and you have a nurse their for support, in case you mess up. Hell, she can probably even show you the best place to stick the needle! Not to mention the safe, friendly environment where you can trip right out with all of your new friends, while your brain and other vital organs slowly eat away at themselves...la, la, la...

Pitfield ruled that "all of this is healthcare," and therefore made the decision. Rory Leishman said in the NP today:

.....
"When judges take it upon themselves, in cases like this where reasonable people can reasonably disagree ... and say we're going to resolve this in accordance with our opinion, in effect, the judges are usurping the democratic powers of the elected representatives of the people,"
.....

While Judge Pitfield said he made the decision because he can't bear to see addicts shoot up in alleyways, I'm wondering, why let addicts shoot up at all? This issue should be more about root causes and less about acceptance of something that is very unhealthy, and very illegal. If people really care for these addicts, why not make it so they HAVE to turn their lives around? Instead of granting them a slower, "safer" death, why not force them to go off the drugs cold turkey, making for less drug use in future generations, and better lives for people in this one? When someone is caught for trafficking drugs, give them life in a maximum-security prison. Instead of having the government give money to Insite, spend the tax dollars on more police searching for drug dealers and addicts in alleyways. Throw the dealers in jail and the addicts in rehab, no questions asked. Is this really that complicated?

Oh, and what's that I said about tax dollars?

.....
"British Columbia's Ministry of Health gave Insite $1.2-million to renovate a former retail space.."

"Health Canada gives Insite $500,000 every year through Vancouver Coastal Health.."

"the cost of each injection was about $1,380."
.....

The only logical argument in favour of a site like this could be made if one was to look at the figures for drug-related healthcare costs in Canada. They're through the roof. However, reports show that Insite only accounts for less than 5% of Vancouver's downtown Eastside residents shooting up. So really BC taxpayers are only paying extra for this site to be run. About one life per year will be saved if Insite keeps functioning (for $3 million a year). And that's one drug-addicted, going-to-die-soon-anyway life. Oh, and Insite also hasn't shown to decrease HIV rates. At all.

Smooth move, Pitfield.

And this time it really wasn't just my Woody Allen Syndrome...

Just a tidbit for those who are looking to be slightly amused, but also informed of the scary thoughts that loom 'out there' in the world, and particularly the blogsphere:

While calling ME a racist, a darling reader of mine, by the name of omenofclarity, told me this:

"YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURGED IN THE HOLOCAUST"

...oh, how lovely and refreshing. A left-wing anti-Semite. Please, omen, stop cluttering this blog with your (highly illogical) racist statements. They are very much unappreciated.

Update: A petty attempt to silence the Heartbeat

One will recall the post "Pro-life groups on campus: A petty attempt to silence the Heartbeat," which focused on the shocking number of Canadian colleges and universities that are denying pro-life groups their freedom of speech, and frankly, their freedom to even BE a group.

Look's like the York (University) Federation of Students executive has hopped on the anti-free speech bandwagon. Despite the fact that the school administration is disagreeing with them (and going over their heads) on the grounds of allowing students free speech, the YFS are relentlessly trying to deny the only pro-life-focused group on campus of its rights. Without informing the president or co-president of the pro-life group, "York's Students for Bioethical Awareness," the YFS put a ban on any pro-life groups and attempted to filter which aspects of this crucial debate students could discuss.

The YFS also announced that the "vast majority" of students felt the way the YFS did, without taking any sort of poll or survey, or even asking many (if any) students. One student speaks out in the National Post article, angry about how the YFS claims to speak for her and the rest of the student body (they don't).

Micheal Payton, another York student, is also outraged:

.....
"When the YFS says they believe in free speech, they believe in free speech for them, for the positions they hold, not freedom of speech for positions they disagree with."
.....

York's VP of students was dissapointed with the YFS: '"It's a part of the texture of Canadian society, this debate," he said.'
Well, hopefully he, and the administration don't let this slide. Our rights are slipping slowly through the cracks and we'd better catch them while we still can. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion, one must recognize that it is crucial to hold onto our Charter-given rights and freedoms, which is exactly what this issue is all about.

Visible "minorities" rule the schools

The other day, I visited York University in Toronto. I can say, in all honesty, that I was the only white person there...other than the bus driver. This wasn't surprising, really. Everyone knows that the racial tension at York is thicker than imported petroleum. Being a Haligonian student myself, I can say that the same is not true for that part of the country. However, that part of the country is a lot smaller than York's. Toronto has three huge universities and many colleges, and the surrounding areas in Ontario harbour dozens more. Well, apparently, the scale is pretty weighed down by one side.

According to an article in the Post, entitled "Visible Minorities More Likely To Hold University Degree Than White Canadians," ...visible minorities are more likely to hold a university degree than white Canadians. Yeahh.. the title really says it all.

Never the less, read on:

.....
"There is a large and growing gap between Canadians when it comes to who has a university degree, with visible minorities far more likely to have a university education than white Canadians, according to a new study. The analysis of the 2006 census results by Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, found a 20-point gap between visible minority and white Canadians aged 35 to 44 when it comes to university education. The group with the highest proportion of university-educated people were Korean Canadians; 74.7% of those who responded in the age group analyzed had a university degree. Filipino and Chinese Canadians were in second and third place with about 58.6% and 58.4% of their community holding university degrees. The groups that were the least likely to have a university degree were white Canadians, only 25.9% of whom had graduated university."
.....

Okay, so wow. I actually only found out about this article when I read it's highly irrelevant rebuttle in the Post this morning. How I missed it yesterday, I don't know. Regardless, the figures were a little surprising to me. Aside from whether this is a good or bad thing, I mean, I knew that there were lots of "visible minorities" at Canadian universities, but I never thought that the numbers were this unbalanced. I guess I was blinded by the glossy walls of my little waspy Halifax bubble.

The part of the article which is most alarming is the first sentence. "There is a large AND GROWING gap when it comes to who has a university degree.." So, there's 25.9% of us now.. what does that leave for the future? 20%? 15%? 10%? 2%?

For everyone who maintains that there is still a vast majority of white kids in Canadian schools: there you have it. You're wrong. So what is it, folks? Are we whiteys just lazy? And what's with this term "minority"? Aren't they clearly the majority in this case?

Theodore Roosevelt said:
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad."

Keep that in mind. Those who hold college degrees or trade school diplomas may certainly be successful--perhaps (and sometimes likely) even more successful than their academically-minded friends--but those who hold university degrees are literally the future of a society. (Yes, there are exceptions, Mark Steyn.) They're the thinkers; those who advance society with research, technological developments, books, newspapers, medical advancements, etc. Granted, you have to speak English to go to university in Canada NOW, but in a few years, when the newspapers are in a different language and you can't understand your doctor's diagnosis (or your prof...aka: now. not in a few years), you'll be wishing you got off your butt and went to school.

Radio with Balls

If you're:

-too lazy to read
-on the go
-tired of the lack of emotion blogs offer you
-need to hear the voice(s) behind your daily rant
-looking for something very entertaining and informative
-cool

then check out BRASS BALLS RADIO, a punchy, newsy podcast by RightGirl (Wendy Sullivan) and Mike Willams. Believe it or not, there may be even more bite than RightGirl's blog site. Two have-a-listens up already, and some cool video feeds. Highly reccomended.

Greenpeace wants a piece of the green

When I say "Greenpeace", I'm sure several very un-peaceful thoughts come to mind. That said, here's a little more (fossil) fuel to add to that fire:

.....
"Addressing members of the National Association of Home Builders at their recent National Green Building Conference in New Orleans, Moore said, “Greenpeace is using the US Green Building Council’s LEED green building standard as a Trojan horse to deliver an activist agenda that is not in line with science or sustainability.”

“Ironically, many of the positions that Greenpeace and other activist organizations advocate run contrary to a sound green building approach and will likely do more harm than good,” said Moore, Chair and Chief Scientist at consulting firm Greenspirit Strategies Ltd."
.....

Greenpeace co-founder/FORMER leader Dr. Patrick Moore speaks out against the politicizing of the "green" agenda. Greenpeace holds a staunch position against the use of nuclear energy and hydro power (which are two of the most efficient and sustainable sources we have). They are also against the use of the very sustainable (and anti-bacterial) vinyl for healthcare purposes. According to Moore, eliminating vinyl from the healthcare fields would up healthcare costs dramatically for Canadians, not to mention the fact that it will decrease the hospitals' hygiene.

Though I'm sure the left generally doesn't care much about how hygienic Canadian hospitals are--the rich politicians and environmental group leaders can make use of the hush-hush private clinics, anyway--what will they do without the low cost of a hospital visit in this country? "Free" healthcare is a precious commodity of the lefties! If they support the "environmental" movements to ditch vinyl and stick to, I don't know, grass?, prices will steepen (according to Moore), therefore making the entire move very contradictory. But, I mean, no surprises there.

Greenpeace is already using LEED, Canada's "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" (visit the site; you'll catch a nice, big picture of Suzuki...sweet!), to back what they're saying, in order to make it sound more legit. '"These unscientific biases, fostered by activist groups, have found their way into the LEED standard,” said Moore.'

Moore says that competition among these environmentalist organizations, like LEED, is crucial to decrease corruption. Well, yeah. I can't say I want MORE of these elitist hippie-dippie groups running around, pushing a political agenda down my throat, but at least letting them have it out with one another would keep them in check (and provide entertainment for us). Green IS the colour of envy...some healthy competition might do some good.

All I can say is that when the co-founder of Greenpeace is speaking out about how corrupt and politically-minded the organization is, you can be sure that our society has really gone down the drain for eating dandelion-salad this crap up (that said, I do like dandelion salad).

A Sunny page of dark Israeli humour, and the "moderate muslim"

So well-written, I thought everyone should read it...
Micheal Coren, in the Sun:

.....
"At a national level, no Canadian labour union or left-wing church called for a boycott of either China or Iran, after it was exposed that these two countries alone account for the vast majority of the world's executions and torture.
In fact there was an eerie silence surrounding the figures.
Those of us who believe that these two authoritarian and corrupt regimes should indeed be boycotted have come up with a foolproof way of producing action from said unions and liberal churches. From now on both Iran and China will be known as Israel. Motions of boycott and condemnation are being written as we speak."
.....

Funny as this piece is, the humour comes from the scary fact that this is the truth. A perfect way of exposing Canada's inherent anti-Semitism and blatant naivety. I couldn't have described it better myself (so I won't try).

I'm not a huge fan of the Sun generally, but I always love to read the page with Micheal Coren and Salim Mansur's columns. I wasn't too keen on Mansur's article this week, however, which addressed Mark Steyn's calling a moderate muslim a "mythical creature" in the National Review recently. Mansur insists that such a thing does, in fact, exist, and that Steyn is wrong for saying otherwise (although he maintains that he usually enjoys his writing very much). I feel slightly the same way about you in regards to this article, Salim.

He brings to attention Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, whom he describes as a moderate muslim. I'm all for the MCC. It's a very liberal organization in regards to Islam, and it recognizes the dangers in extremism and how it is spreading far too quickly. Fatah may be a moderate muslim. They aren't mythical creatures, and Steyn has kind of contradicted himself on this issue a few times, particularly at his book signing, at which he told stories of speaking with (at least what I got the impression were) moderate muslim women.

Conversely, when I read the article in the NR, I didn't really take the statement literally. The way I see it--and I believe this is how Steyn sees it as well--is that sure, there may be moderate muslims right now. But they aren't the ones speaking out. No noise from that corner. And at that rate, the extremists, whose numbers are quickly increasing, are the ones who will have the greater affect on the western world. And when it comes down to it, who are the moderate muslims going to side with? I saw at my own highschool, several students turn quickly from relaxed, funloving kids, to stern, devoted muslims (in full garb), over the course of less than a year in some cases. I think what Steyn is suggesting is that yes, there are moderate muslims now, but at the end of the day, the extremists will take the cake and the ones who aren't voicing their opinions even close to enough now, sure as hell won't voice their opinions then. In turn, this eliminates the moderate muslim.

But yes, the statement was a little extreme. And I don't know if what I suggested is necessarily true. Mansur makes a strong case:

.....
"One of the useful distinctions Fatah offers is between a "state of Islam" and an "Islamic state." The former he describes as strivings of an individual for inner spiritual tranquility that is timeless and universal. The latter he speaks of as the fanatical quest of Islamists to resurrect in the 21st century a political arrangement from the 7th century contrived by Arabs of Muhammad's generation after his demise. The contemporary struggle within Islam is between these two quests, and in their eventual outcome rests peace or war in our time."
.....

Mansur is a moderate muslim himself, and a smart guy to boot. But the rate at which so many (mostly young) muslims are switching over to the fanatical "latter" makes me question the tranquil "former". A lot.

Something cool for Torontonians...

For those of you who live in Toronto (or conveniently happen to be visiting the city this weekend),
and are interested in religion and/or cool architecture,

check out Doors Open Toronto; a weekend-long event that has tons of religious organizations in the city opening up their doors, free of charge to the public. This is a great opportunity to get informed and learn some stuff that I would find super interesting. Unfortunately, I have to work, so as to remove the "starving" from my "starving student" label.


For those of you who live in Halifax,

you live in a cleaner, safer, city that borders on the ocean. Don't worry. They're just as jealous.

Finally, global warming gets a cool-down

FINALLY there is a considerable enough number of scientists to support that global warming--as in, the man-made kind--is a hoax! I've been saying it all along (and I know you have too): It's a business. Buy this Roots "Flick Off" sweatshirt for $70. Buy these lightbulbs that are eight times the price of the regular ones. Buy these ridiculously overpriced hybrid cars. Give David Suzuki some money (hey, at this point, why not?).

One night, I sat down and watched An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle one after the other. An Inconvenient Truth is basically a campaign video for Al Gore, in which he takes many forms of carbon-producing transportation, and yammers on a lot, pointing to vague graphs that no one actually understands, but pretends that they do. The Great Global Warming Swindle, on the other hand, was a fantastic documentary that interviews many scientists and university professors (not the self-proclaimed kind, a la Gore). It's to the point and factual, and even easy enough for a simple arts student like me to understand. Check it out: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

The documentary, shown originally on BBC, explains that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, and that humans have very little to nothing to do with it. This does make perfect sense, and the people featured in this flick seem a lot more intelligent than Al Gore (who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his film, by the way). Still, anyone who denies man-made global warming is immediately deemed a "DENIER" by the loving left, and their views are considered akin to that of a holocaust denier.

The very term "denier", when used in this context absolutely disgusts me. For someone to label me, a Jew, in a similair category as that of a holocaust denier is so incredibly insulting, I can't even begin to explain it. Especially considering that what I'm saying is actually fact! As you can probably tell, I tend to engage anyone I don't agree with in immediate debate, but as a result of this horrible term, I stayed silent when it came to global warming. "No, I don't agree with you, but I don't wish to go there right now."

Thank goodness for me, and all DENIERS for that matter, 32,000 scientists have joined together and publicly repudiated man-made global warming, calling the Kyoto protocol a "corruption of science". The scientists behind The Swindle weren't enough. The scientists who angrily protested the misuse of their information in Gore's inconvenient film weren't enough. But for crying out loud, 32,000 should definitely be enough!

Although the left thought they had it with the "science" in support of man-made global warming, it looks like they're going to have to cover their tracks once again. And it should be delightfully interesting to see how they'll do it! I hope the public doesn't let this one slide.. I mean, come on people! You've been screwed out of a lot of money here! You've been made to believe that the world is ending and it's your fault! Surely now you'll want answers.

Let's all remember that Suzuki himself spoke out about "global cooling" in the 70s, warning against a world-wide ice age! Well, that certaily didn't happen, so I don't really understand why everyone trusts him when he says the opposite, 40 years later. But hey, it's made him a star. A martyr, even. And undoubtedly richer than you or I. Oh, that's because we're the ones footing his bills. Fantastic.

I just hope that these scientists aren't tossed aside like the rest of us realists. Lawrence Solomon agrees:

.....
"Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?

"I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming," he says, "and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren't alone."

At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn't be done by poll, he explains. "The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."
.....

All I can say, again, is FINALLY. Pretty COOL development, anyway!

Halifax Professor Speaks Freely!

Here's to hoping that Prof. Mark Mercer, of the Philosophy department at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, doesn't go the way of his former colleague, Prof. Peter March. In February 2006, Peter March, also a professor of philosphy at SMU, was met by over one hundred protestors--most of which were Muslims students--after posting the famous Mohammed cartoon on his door. Although he only posted the cartoon to spark what he thought would be a healthy debate, March was ordered by the university administration to take down the cartoon immediately. Months later, March suspiciously filed for early retirement.

Professor Mark Mercer (who still has his job) wrote an article in the Chronicle Herald today, regarding section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights act: the section which the complaint against Maclean's magazine was filed. The article takes a rather philisophical approach to the problems with section 13 (blame it on the day job?):

.....
"Now none of us ... want our ears bruised by racist epithets and we don’t want to witness displays of contempt. And yet one doesn’t have to be a free speech absolutist to see what is wrong and dangerous with s. 13. It is addressed to any matter that "is likely to expose" a person to hatred. What you say need not actually expose anyone to hatred. It need not even be intended to expose anyone to hatred."
.....

Now, Haligonians, aren't you proud that Mercer is from Halifax? I sure am! It's nice to see someone speaking out against the ridicule of section 13, and what the HRC has become, in general. What a delightful change this is for Halifax. Especially considering this is concerning a professor at a university in Halifax! So there is hope.. Now all we need to do is get the politicians on our side:

.....
"Happily, Keith Martin, the member of parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, a riding on Vancouver Island, has introduced into the House of Commons a private member’s motion, M-446, to delete s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Unhappily, the matter of s. 13 hasn’t yet become a political issue. Unless a political party takes it up, M-446 will languish, and unless Canadians make s. 13 a political issue, no party will take up M-446. We need to communicate to politicians our support for M-446."

"Let us thaw the chilly climate in which we presently live so that we may speak candidly with each other about whatever is important to us. Support publicly Dr. Martin’s motion so that our politicians will come to do so, too."
.....

You heard him, folks! Paging Rodney...

Now let's just pray that Mercer doesn't undergo the same hateful scrutiny that March did.

Pro-life groups denied on campus: a petty attempt to silence the Heartbeat

A handful (and probably more) of university/college campuses across Canada have been faced with a small debate. Capilano College in BC, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, York University in Toronto and University of British Columbia-Okanagan apparently all have leftist student unions. Not such a surprise, but I was caught a little off guard when I read the article in today's Post, which addressed the fact that several pro-life groups on campus were being denied their rights to even function as a group. This surprised me most because of the sheer number of groups that exist at my university. There's a group for everything! There's a tea-drinkers society, for goodness sake.

When denied the right to have the student union deem them as an organized "anti-abortion" group, which they call the "Heartbeat Club", the Capilano students went straight to the Human Rights Commission:

.....
"...the Heartbeat Club's human rights complaint was framed as discrimination based on the members' religious views, Ms. Hudson said it is primarily a complaint about constraints on their free speech, which is not addressed by the province's human rights code."
.....

Ahh, the HRC. Well, first of all, I don't think this group should necessarily be deemed "religious"; I think someone can be pro-life for non-holy reasons. You can be against killing the potential for a life outside of the church walls. But, throw religion into the kvetch and the HRC will be all over it, so the students were smart in that regard. Universities are packed with student union-approved religious groups, as well as groups that stress the importance of certain aspects of a religion, as the Heartbeat Club was claiming to do.

What's interesting is that this complaint is in regards to MAINTAINING the right to free speech, not smothering it completely, as the HRC is usually in favour of. Sarah Hudson of the National Campus Life Network reognized the faultiness among the HRC, herself:

.....
"When it comes to human rights tribunals, there is not much consistency because it's not a true judicial system, but I think it will set a precedent to show the student unions that they can't just take away people's rights to their freedom of expression or their opinions," Ms. Hudson said."
.....

Not a true judicial system? The folks behind it sure act like it is. Regardless, this needn't have been a complaint at all. Universities, as I said, support plenty of religious organizations and groups, as well as seemingly ridiculous groups that get equal funding (swing-dancing society?). These groups don't generally push their views on the student passerbys, but rather notify the public about upcoming events, and what the group is all about, in case anyone would be interested in joining.

Aside from whether one supports a woman's right to choose (or a baby's right to life) or not, this is about the right to free speech. Universities and Colleges should be open forums for discussion at all costs--with limitations in regards to hate, of course--and should be encouraging all points of view, not discouraging certain ones. And isn't it odd that the pro-life viewpoint tends to sit just right of centre? No. Typical Canadian universities shutting up everyone who isn't a proud supporter of the NDP.

Call me crazy, but if the issue this group was pressing wasn't associated with Christianity, I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue at all. The fact that the Heartbeat Club, and other pro-life groups weren't allowed to even EXIST until they pushed for their rights is ridiculous, but nothing short of expected on the leftist Canadian university/college campuses.

Soon to come: "No More Free Speech for Quebecers"

Although I dislike its tendency to order independence with a side of national perks, I have always admired Quebec's staunchness in regards to tradition and culture. Montreal is a vibrant, multicultural city; but the francophones have always had an elite air about them. This may not be the best way to maintain a culture, but no anglophone can say they don't feel it when they walk into a diner anywhere in Quebec, so at least it's working. Everyone knows that the Catholic church in Quebec reigns supreme. Old Montreal is rich with history. They make a great poutine. Celine Dion..

Well apparently, the French-Canadians are starting to fear for their culture, as they very well should. They may be off in their own little "independent" province, or nation, or whatever, but let's not forget that they're still smack-dab in the middle of Kooooooky Canada! An article entitled Do not fear Muslims, report says, in the National Post (taken from the Montreal Gazette), outlines a report that will be released by Quebec righty-to-lefty Premier, Jean Charest, on Wednesday. The report on "reasonable accomodation" addresses the fear that Quebecers share; the fear of drowning in a sea of foreign cultures, and in the process, losing their own.

The report itself is already better outlined than anything to hit Toronto, Canada's other cosmo city. It warns against all-black private schools and the like, stating that such institutions promote segregation (uh, yeah!). But the report will introduce a new Quebec, where minorities can have as much of a voice as the majority of French-Canadians. (Soon to come: "No more free speech for French-Canadians in Quebec!")

Several cultural "minorities" are addressed, but mainly the focus is on Muslims, with a special appearance by the Orthodox Jews. Man, I wish these fundamentalist Jews would stop kvetching so much over nothing. In doing so they're getting grouped in with the wrong crowd, when their complaints are far from the same level of extremity as the Muslim and Sikh complaints are:

.....
March, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of a Montreal Sikh teenager who wanted to keep wearing his kirpan, the traditional ceremonial dagger of baptized orthodox Sikh men, to school. - The Association of Maritime Employers agreed to re-examine its workplace rules after orthodox Sikh truck drivers objected to wearing a safety helmet instead of their turban at the Port of Montreal. - A Montreal YMCA frosted the windows of an exercise room so that ultraorthodox Jewish neighbours would not have to watch women exercising. - Montreal policewomen were advised in a training brochure to let their male colleagues take charge when visiting Hasidic neighbourhoods. - The "scandals" came to a head in January, 2007, with the publication of a "code of life" by the village council of Herouxville in the Mauricie, in which foreigners were advised that public stonings and female circumcision were not allowed in the community.
.....

Kid bringing a knife to school vs. frosted windows in a gym. Public stonings vs. male policemen dealing with certain areas. Frankly, I don't agree with any of it, and I'll admit that the ultra-orthodox Jews have done a terrible job of assimilating. But the fact is, they generally don't impose their ways of life on other people. And none of their kvetching puts anyone in danger. I just wish they'd drop that "oy, vey" mentality for once and sit on the sidelines for a while, so the real risk in these complaints can be exposed. Jews have lived in Montreal for a long time, and it has never been a problem for people. If the Jews were the real inconvinience here, this report would have come out ages ago.

The report "blames the Quebec media for being generally "very old-stock" and "very white." But that's what Quebec is! I'm all for other cultures coming on in and assimilating, but why should the Quebec folk whose homeland it is have to change their ways of life to accomodate other cultures? Classic Steyn reverse assimilation. Quebecers are asked to learn English and "be nicer to Muslims."

I appreciate the no-bullshit approach that the Quebec government is taking with this report, setting out proper guidelines so fewer lines can be crossed (one of these guidelines is, actually: "they're framed by guidelines and protected against the effect of spiralling out of control;" - a guideline within a guideline! Extra precaution!). It's interesting though...only a few months back, Quebec was preaching the importance of their independent culture, and now they're willing to give it up. The purpose of the report is to bring all cultures living in Quebec together, via the Quebec natives changing around their classic ways of life to provide a more cushioney environment for immigrants who can't be bothered to fully assimilate, like they did in the past.

The biggest obstacle in this process will occur once the implementation of the report will already have taken place among Quebec natives. They'll all realize that the other religious cultures don't want to assimilate. They want Canadians to. And conveniently for them, Canadians already will have.

SAME BLOG, NEW LAYOUT.

I thought it looked oceanic.

But no worries, still the same loudmouthed girl behind the screen.

Ontario: there's no other place for Keshia Chante!

Sorry about the almost-two-day delay on a post. Long weekend = cottage country = no internet (or even lights)!

.....



Just caught the "There's No Place Like This" Ontario tourism commercial on the tube. It begins: a stage featuring Keshia Chante. Chante is originally from Ottawa, so her celebrity appearance on Ontario's very own commercial was fitting. Mind you, I can think of a bunch of other Canadian musicians who I'd have preferred, but I suppose that's just my opinion. So, according to this ad, what's Ontario--arguably Canada's business and cosmopolitan hub--all about?

After Keshia Chante belts out a few "hey yeah, oh oh oh's", the commercial is packed with people of all cultures (mostly black people, which is perfect as Toronto just introduced Afrocentric schools), although I didn't notice any Indian or Middle Eastern people. I wonder why (seriously). There's a small plane. There's some sort of a multicultural festival. Some Scottish guy throws a log or something. Four gay men meet for Starbucks..

Perhaps this jumbled commercial represents Toronto: very multicultural, plenty of festivals, big on gay pride, Keshia Chante swinging her hips.. But does this really represent Ontario as a whole? Everyone who appears to be in the country drives a nice car and is probably on a day trip. This ad is advertising Toronto more than it is anything else, which is a shame, because we certainly don't need anyone else coming to Toronto.

Just coming back from the cottage today, I am reminded that there are other parts of Ontario besides Toronto, whose loudmouthed leftists tend to steal all the spotlight. If I lived out in the Kawarthas and saw this commercial, I would not feel that it represented my province in any way, shape or form, other than the cameo of the guy who is waterskiing, which is really just an activity that you'd do at your cottage, when you were on vacation or a weekend away. Sorry if you're from the Kawartha Lakes area and waterski all the time. If that is the case, please feel free to correct me.

The most noticeable cameo in this commercial, by far, is the gay pride bit with the rainbow flags, the girlie greeting hugs and the iced grande four-pump sugar-free vanilla non-fat lattes. Which, might I say, captures the gay stereotype quite well. Come to Ontario and you'll fit into whichever cultural stereotype you want! We demand nothing of you! You can either be the black single mom with her kid, the materialistic gay man, or, if you really want to stick out like a sore thumb, the big crazy Scottish guy who throws logs around.

Cottage country was refreshing, in that it was a step away from the tiring Toronto scene (which, might I say, is great for a shopping day-trip, but discouraging to live in). Granted, you have all the perks of a big city, but you also have your tax dollars going towards the most ridiculous things, and you basically have to put up with the scum of the earth 24/7. But forget about cottage country. That's not where all the votes are! We might as well advertise our province like it's just Toronto and bring in more votes that way. Then we can just expand the trash of the city into the surrounding suburbs, and everything will be allllllright.

I'm originally from Ontario, and after watching that commercial, I feel I was represented in no way whatsoever. But when I think about what I'd like to see; some original Canadian/Ontario culture, some small towns with that "small-town Canada feel," I can't help but admit that a commercial featuring those things wouldn't be very representative of Ontario, either. Perhaps the commercial did a great job in showcasing Ontario as it truly is today. And that's sad. But that's riding on the assumption that Ontario is focused around Toronto, and in a lot of ways, it is.

For a city that was founded by some pretty noteable WASPs, Toronto has certainly changed in the past few decades. When you consider the power that the city has in Canada, the speed at which it turned to shit is pretty alarming. This obviously has to do with the massive culture clash within its borders, and the fact that its run by a government who really doesn't care how the city is doing, but rather will accomodate the immigrant/welfare vote at every opportunity. It's a vicious circle. Undoubtedly, Canada should have a better filtering process.

But, according to Keshia Chante, anyone who can "rise in the morning with the sun" is welcome in Ontario.

Suzuki should stick to fruit flies

Due to global warming (or is it "climate change" now? I can't keep up..), the States have declared the polar bear a "threatened species". According to an article by Colby Cosh in today's National Post, 60% of the polar bears in the world live in Canada. Canada has yet to declare the polar bear a "threatened species" although they are currently in some other sort-of-endangered-but-not-really rank. But, odds are, Canada will likely follow suit and up the polar bears' risk status.

I'm not going to say I don't understand why, because I do; it's completely political. Cosh's article quotes the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: "there is uncertainty over the ... impact of climate change on the species' distribution and numbers ... the current and projected decline is insufficient to justify a status of Threatened."

Although the Conservatives recognize "climate change" now--votes! votes! votes!---it has been that Liberals and the NDP that initially jumped onto the environmental bandwagon. Not littering is a good thing. Taking some initiative in keeping the planet clean is great. But putting the environment above safety and other more important issues is just ridiculous. And it will be interesting to see if Canada labels polar bears as "threatened", even though the science (currently what the left is relying on, in whatever misleading ways they represent it) goes against it.

This will be an interesting test of ignorance for Canadians and our government. Yes, there's a war going on, but it seems that more Canadians are concerned with how much water their shower nozzle spews out at them every morning. No, they can't describe their culture without using the terms "beer", "hockey" and "toque", but they can quote Al Gore's faulty statements word for word. If the Canadian government makes a move to kiss the polar bears' collective butts, for no good reason whatsoever, it will be a move for votes and nothing else.

It will be amusing to see how, if they do follow suit with our neighbours to the south, they will justify such a move. I wonder if they'll twist stats and graphs around like Gore did. Or maybe it'll just be a quick "OMG! We're the Liberal ones.. not the States!" and it will be done in a flash. Either way, reps of the David Suzuki Foundation are already pushing the Canadian government to follow the US, so it's pretty much in the bag.

An attempt to understand the Liberal mindset...Good luck!

Something very cool to check out:

freedom fan left a link to this website/article, which outlines the way that Modern Liberals "think". I thought it was fantastic.

...
"EVAN SAYET: I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a liberal New York Jew; you don't get much more liberal than that--although it was lower-case "l," not what's considered Liberal today. I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.

I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps crys tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate my wife." You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife.

So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant. You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it." At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it."

At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. And that began me on what's now a five-plus-year quest to try to understand the mindset."
...

More Israel Bashing in the Post

Today's morning coffee (Just Us' Evangeline Blend) was finished off with a bitter taste, and it wasn't because of the 'fair trade' rant on the back of the bag. The front of the Ideas section in the National Post featured a big, bold "DOES ZIONISM HAVE A FUTURE?" Now, the Post has had articles about Israel for the past little while, which is usually delightful. I say this with the obvious exception of Jeet Heer's "Israel's Original Sin" article, which was met with much disgust from readers, and even from the Post itself: "That said, we strongly disagree with Mr. Heer's thesis." His article was about the "ethnic cleansing" that was necessary in Israel's creation, and is packed with contradictions and common "Palestinian" myths...give it a read! The Post defended that Heer is a frequent contributor to the paper, and that his thesis (although very incorrect and "misguided") was well-researched, and it is their duty as a national paper to give equal representation of all viewpoints. Okay, okay, fine. Let's all remember that the Post is a right-wing paper, though, which is generally not open to hate articles about Israel. But their statement was fair, unlike Heer's anti-Semitic article, and so it was passable. I assumed, after the response that Heer got, that the Post would not publish another article like it.

I was wrong. Although not as blatantly anti-Semitic or misguided, DOES ZIONISM HAVE A FUTURE? by Christopher Hitchens still managed to spoil my breakfast. Yes, this is the Chris Hitchens of "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". The article was even-handed at times, and mentioned a dislike for Jimmy Carter (a plus), but generally it was just as misguided as Heer's:

...
"And of course, there are the Jews who simply continue to live in, or to support from a distance, a nerve-racked and high-tech little state that absorbs a lot of violence and cruelty and that has also shown itself very capable of inflicting the same."
...

I for one am tired of the left from the west putting the Jewish people on even close to the same plane as the "Palestinians". The Israeli government has made several attempts at peace with these people, to no avail. At his Toronto book signing, Mark Steyn looked at the issue from a utilitarian perspective: He would much rather more democratic, peaceful, advancing states in the world than the rest of the Arab countries, which are still stuck in the 7th century. This is exactly the case. But anti-Zionism has become a sort of anti-America these days, and Canadians love to bash America, even if they don't know why. Throw that in the pot with a dash of inherent anti-Semitism, and Israel doesn't stand a chance in any of these leftists' eyes.

But it's true. Israel is a tiny little democratic nation stuck in a midst of ancient-minded bullies with rocket launchers. It is a lot more like the west than it is like anything else around it. Which is why Hitchens' last statement doesn't exactly ring true (notice the refrain of the prefix "anti", when referring to himself):

...
"Instead, this crux forces non-Zionists like me to ask whether, in spite of everything, Israel should be defended as if it were a part of the democratic West. This is a question to which Israelis themselves have not yet returned a completely convincing answer, and if they truly desire a 60th, let alone a 70th, birthday celebration, they had better lose no time in coming up with one."
...

Typical Israel-bashing. The contradiction within Israel is that, while it wants to be an independent nation, help from other countries is necessary for its survival. But why is this such a horrible thing? Why can't the States defend the little puppy surrounded by a pack of vicious wolves? Israel is truly the only glimmer of democratic, peaceful light in that part of the planet. And yes, you can admit it, you'd rather all of the Arab countries be more like Israel than the internally oppressed nations that they are now.

If Canada were at war, we'd want the States and England and all of our allies to help us out, without questionning why we needed it. If, say, Cape Breton, which has moved for an independence of its own, was surrounded by bombs soaring in at every direction, it would want help from the rest of Canada! And, regardless of how much help it would actually be, the rest of Canada would come in and lend a hand. I should hope it wouldn't say "Oh, so you need our help NOW." I should hope it wouldn't take even a split second to question whether or not it should be of aid.

Israel may not be in the West, but it is certainly democractic and should undoubtedly be grouped in with us rather than with the Arab nations that surround it. It is disgusting that it even needs a "right to exist", or that it should be in question. I sincerely hope that the Post quits printing these articles. A note to Hitchens: Israel already has celebrated a 60th anniversary. It just did. And kudos to all who have taken off their trendy leftist "I have no clue why I'm so staunch to this mindset" caps and stood up for its survival.

The new, improved Halifax is shaded by a big, pesky Willow Tree

HRMbyDESIGN is a regional plan for the "urban centre" of Halifax to develop into something, I guess, a little more urban. The plan's aim is to develop certain parts of the city, making it an even better place to live. A very cool initiative to be taken, in my opinion. Halifax right now is a little too small-towny; just a tad too short of cosmopolitan. Still, it's nice to see someone you know whenever you take a stroll downtown. Plus, big cities have their definite downfalls: high crime rates, loss of culture, racial tension, etc. But we all love Halifax. It's at a good stage in that regards to those downfalls. Could be a little safer, but if we don't include Dartmouth, we're doing all right.

HRMbyDESIGN will be focusing on "sustainability" (surprise!), as the first issue on its tackle-list. Other focuses include "growth and change", which is (thankfully) balanced out with "heritage and culture". Big cities like Toronto have become hubs of high tension for various reasons, one of them most likely being that no sense of culture was maintained. (Toronto? What am I saying? I meant Canada.) So it's great that Halifax wants to maintain the importance of its rich history, which is probably the neatest part of the city (next to the Freak Lunchbox).

One of HRMbyDESIGN's focuses will be Quinpool Road. Halifax's little Danforth Avenue, Quinpool is packed with just about as much multiculturalism as Halifax has to offer--from a Korean church to an Ethiopian restaurant. Cleaning up Quinpool is a great idea, and it would be cool if it was kind of an extension of downtown. It already has the coolest movie theatre and video store in town. Although perhaps a bit too hippie-dippie, Quinpool is a friendly street. Even the character homeless people aren't so bad. Mind you, I don't particularly fancy strolling down the street at midnight, alone, with the exception of a few homeless old men. It doesn't make me feel all that safe (and note: I wouldn't feel all that safe alone on a dark street with any old men I don't know; but the constant asking for change is just the cherry).

Haligonians will remember the recent bylaw to stop squeegie kids from jumping out in front of cars at the Willow Tree intersection (Quinpool & Robie). As the (very dangerous) intersection borders on the Commons, it's a haven for the homeless. The bylaw was a good idea, despite whatever articles were written about it, labelling squeegeeing as a job where you can "have your own hours", and calling the MacDonald government "afraid of poverty."

But did the bylaw really work? Sure, street kids can't jump out of cars with a squeegie anymore, but they sure can jump out with a cup in hand, and they sure do! If HRMdyDESIGN, the MacDonald government or anyone wants Quinpool Road to be more accessible and just all-around better, cleaning up the Willow Tree intersection should be a top priority. As it stands, it is probably the most pedestrian-unfriendly intersection in Halifax, especially in comparison to the rest of the city, which is great for walkers, bikers, busses (read: not for big, bad SUVs)!

Halifax is predominantly a student city. When there are squeegie kids (and kids who don't offer a service) asking me, and other 'starving' students, for our hard-earned change so they can go out and buy a beer, it has me asking why on earth I should give my beer-dime to them. I hate to say get a job, but...

You want Quinpool Road to be cleaner, bigger, brighter, better? Cut down the Willow Tree.

Did anyone actually like Little Mosque?

Okay, this video is a little old (May 6) but I think everyone should watch it, if only for the girl in the green shirt. Hilarious! Steyn barely addresses the students and he still manages to chew them up and spit them out (just kidding; they definitely did that to themselves). Go Steyn!



Check out the rest of this debate.

Freedom to Sketch meets Freedom to Kvetch

It was only after looking into this that I found out that there even is a Centre for Islamic Development in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Well isn't that just wonderful (on the other hand, I suppose it's a good thing that I wasn't aware of it until now. Throw one of those up in Toronto and trust me, you'll know it's there). However, the CID Halifax director, Zia Khan, is making the centre very much known, in a shocking way. Get this: Khan filed a Human Rights Complaint!

The cartoon posted above, by Bruce MacKinnon from the Herald, depicts Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal (a Nova Scotia native, according to the Herald) holding a sign which read HER EXACT WORDS in reference to how the Federal government should compensate her family for what they'd put her husband through: "I want millions!" Her husband, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was arrested in 2006 at an anti-terrorism raid.

The obvious absurdity in this case is that Ms. Jamal was depicted exactly how she looks, saying exactly what she said, and making a comment about a "training camp" when her husband was arrested for allegedly plotting terrorist attacks against Canada (yep, that's you). But Khan insisted that the article has "far reaching implications", according to the Herald, and deemed it "extremely offensive." Apparently, Halifax citizens have been making it a hateful environment for all Muslims, all along. (Are you kidding me? Halifax?!)

The most disconcerting thing about this, by far, is WHO is Khan and WHAT does he have to do with this case?! Ms. Jamal herself did not file a complaint in response to this cartoon. Her husband did not file a complaint in response to this cartoon. No, it was the director of the Centre of Islamic Development in Halifax, Nova Scotia who filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission AND the Halifax Regional Police. Let's put this into perspective for a second: that's like the Minister of some random Protestant church contacting the police and whining to the NSHRC in response to some WASP having a cartoon drawn about him in regards to a legal case in which he was involved. WASPs (and others) get sketched for newspapers all the time, but I can't recall a single case in which a random Minister complained publicly about it.

Director of news content for the Herald, Dan Leger maintains that the paper will defend its rights.

If this isn't limiting free speech in Canada, I don't know what is. Why certain groups can kvetch, kvetch, kvetch until the cows come home is beyond me. (Yes, I used a Yiddish word "complain" when speaking about Muslims. I'd better watch my back!) But seriously, if people don't see what is VERY wrong with this picture, God help us all.

Raising My Right Hand

Hey all,

After writing a sort of controversial article for a student paper, I got a small taste of what it was like to get my opinions out there. The afterglow lasted for a few weeks of much negative (and some positive) feedback, but once it all died down I realized I had a lot more to say. A little while after, it was brought to my attention that Halifax is lacking a frequent right-wing blog. The two factors could be considered the mom and dad (not parent 1 and parent 2) of The Girl in Blue!

If you choose to subscribe to this blog, which you undoubtedly should, you'll get a taste of the East coast from a right-of-centre perspective, which will certainly be refreshing. Throw in a hint of Jewish culture (what? a conservative Jew?!), and the discontentment of student life in a student (red) city, and you've got this blog pretty much pegged.

Note that this blog will not deal exclusively with issues pertinent to Halifax, Nova Scotia or Atlantic Canada, however they will be a focus. I will obviously be bothered by national/international issues as well. I very much appreciate your taking the time to read my rants, and will do my best to keep you updated on the right issues!