Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Senator Mike Duffy Can’t Sue Senate Over Suspension

(“P.E.I” Senator Mike Duffy, textbook case of “pig at the trough”)

(Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, all temporarily suspended from the Canadian Senate)

An Ontario Judge has ruled that Mike Duffy cannot sue the Senate for a decision that caused him to be suspended without pay for almost 2 years.

CLICK HERE, for the actual ruling from Justice Sally Gomery. (Quotes in bold/italics. Commentary in regular font).

CLICK HERE, for the original verdict, acquitting Duffy.

[1] Senator Michael Duffy is suing the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages.

[2] On November 5, 2013, the Senate voted to suspend Senator Duffy based on a report from its standing committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the “CIBA”). This CIBA report concluded that he had violated rules on living and travel expenses. Senator Duffy was later criminally charged with breach of trust, fraud and accepting a bribe. On April 21, 2016, after a trial that lasted more than a year, he was acquitted of all charges. Justice Vaillancourt, the judge who heard the criminal trial, concluded that the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) directed one or more senators to interfere with an audit of Senator Duffy’s expenses. 2018 ONSC 7523 (CanLII) He also concluded that, in making living expense claims, Senator Duffy “committed no prohibited act, violated no Senate rules”, and neither engaged in criminal fraud nor intended to do so.

[3] In his lawsuit, Senator Duffy claims that the CIBA report and the Senate’s decision to suspend him were politically motivated, unconstitutional, procedurally unfair and contrary to his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1. Given the judge’s findings when he was acquitted of criminal charges, Senator Duffy argues that actions by various senators and the Senate as a whole were clearly wrong and unlawfully deprived him of salary, allowances and pension contributions. He also says that, since he was acquitted and the suspension was lifted, the Senate has once again unfairly denied him reimbursement for further legitimate expenses. He seeks compensation for the amounts he says he is entitled to as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

[4] This matter is before me now because the Senate says that Senator Duffy’s action should be dismissed. The Senate contends that the lawsuit cannot proceed because the actions that Senator Duffy seeks to challenge fall squarely within the scope of parliamentary privilege. Determining the questions that arise in Senator Duffy’s lawsuit would accordingly require a court to do exactly what parliamentary privilege is designed to prevent.

An interesting approach. While Duffy was ultimately acquitted on the criminal charges, the Trial Judge didn’t exactly exonerate him completely. More on that later. And this deflection and projection does not change the fact that there was considerable grounds for the suspension. This reads like an attempt to cash in.

[7] For the purpose of a motion like this one, I must assume that all of the factual allegations in Senator Duffy’s statement of claim are true. He makes many allegations about the improper motivations of various senators and the denial of any due process. But the core allegation, what he says entitles him to damages, is that the decisions by the CIBA and the Senate to suspend him and to deny his claims for compensation were unlawful and unfair. I must determine whether these decisions are protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore shielded from any review by this court.

This is an important distinction to make here: the Judge is saying that it must be “assumed” for the purposes of the motion that the factual allegations are true. This is not to claim that they actually are.

[8] I conclude that they are. The Senate enjoys certain categories of privilege by virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867. 6 Four types of privilege prevent a court from reviewing the actions by the Senate at issue in this case.

[9] First, parliamentary privilege extends to decisions by the Senate to discipline its own members. The privilege clearly applies to decisions about whether a senator should be suspended or expelled. In some cases, a court may review disciplinary decisions with respect to employees of a legislative body, if the management of such employees does not fall within the scope of what is necessary to protect the independent functioning of that body. There is however no question that the privilege prevents judicial review of discipline or suspension of a member of the legislature itself.

[10] Second, parliamentary privilege applies to the Senate’s management of its internal affairs, including the allocation and use of parliamentary resources. This privilege extends to decisions on the approval of expenses claimed by senators. I find that the privilege applies to decisions by an internal committee of senators, such as the CIBA, with respect to the allocation or withholding of parliamentary resources to a senator.

[11] Third, Parliament has exclusive control over, and privilege with respect to, its own debates and proceedings.

[12] Finally, parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech in the Senate. Allegations in a statement of claim about what was said in parliament must be struck, because statements in parliament cannot be reviewed by a court. Neither a senator nor a third party can be compelled to testify in court about anything they said or did in the course of Senate proceedings. Transcripts of proceedings, and reports produced by or commissioned for the Senate, can likewise not be produced in court proceedings. The Senate’s failure to object to disclosure of some evidence that might have been subject to privilege during Senator Duffy’s criminal trial does not mean that it has relinquished its right to invoke privilege in this case.

The Judge is setting out the reasons here: The Senate is allowed under the law to discipline its own members. The ruling will go on to cite many examples and circumstances, but this will suffice for now.

[13] Senator Duffy contends that the application of parliamentary privilege in this case leaves him without any meaningful remedy. He says that he cannot hope to get justice from the very body that has treated him so badly in the past, and that the courts should not allow Charter violations to go unchecked, particularly in circumstances where those violations arise from interference by one branch of government (the PMO) with another (the Senate).

[14] I am however obliged to respect constitutional imperatives. Allowing a court to revisit the Senate’s decisions at issue here would interfere with the Senate’s ability to function as an independent legislative body, equal to other branches of government. These decisions, as well as the Senate record relevant to them, are protected by parliamentary privilege and are accordingly immune from judicial review or reconsideration. Since the actions at issue fall within those actions protected by parliamentary privilege, I cannot give any consideration to whether they were wrong or unfair or even contrary to Senator Duffy’s Charter rights. All of these are determinations that the Senate, and the Senate alone, can make. The Senate’s motion to dismiss Senator Duffy’s action against it is therefore granted.

Interesting, that Duffy has been in the Senate since 2009, but seems to know so little about how it works.

From the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, 21 and 25.11:


21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).

STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

The Senate invokes 2 sections of the Ontario rules, claiming that since Parliamentary privilege applies that the Senate should not be a defendant in the case.

[25] Over time, the concept of parliamentary privilege was expanded to protect not only speech and procedures, but any action within parliament over which it must necessarily have exclusive control, as an independent and coequal branch of government. Parliamentary privilege is accordingly:
the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament … in order for these legislators to do their legislative work. It is also the necessary immunity that the law provides for anyone while taking part in a proceeding in Parliament … Finally, it is the authority and power of each House of Parliament … to enforce that immunity.

Section 18 of the 1867 Constitution Act states:


Privileges, etc., of Houses
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof

In one context, it is nice that the Court here does apply and uphold some separation between branches of government.

However, from a taxpayer who likes accountability from public officials, there is another viewpoint. Many would like to see the truth of the matter fleshed out, something that hasn’t really happened. However, this seems to be a case of “procedure over facts”.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the RCMP, as they will be all too happy to throw Duffy under the bus to show they acted properly.

Backstory Events Leading Up to Lawsuit Against RCMP and Senate
In November 2013, Conservative Senators: 1/ Patrick Brazeau; 2/ Pamela Wallin’ and 3/ Mike Duffy were all suspended from the Canadian Senate for 2 years without pay, over illegal spending.

Mike Duffy faced 31 criminal charges, including: 15 counts of fraud, 15 counts of breach of trust, and 1 count of bribery, (for allegedly receiving $90,000 gift to pay back expenses).

Brazeau and Liberal Senator Mac Harb were charged with breach of trust and fraud, (sections 122 and 380 of the criminal code)


Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

Fraud
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

Pamela Wallin was never actually charged, but forced to pay back for her actions, despite over $100,000 in illegal expenses. In a bizarre twist, it cost $127,000 to audit Wallin’s spending.

Duffy was acquitted in a very bizarre ruling in 2016. More on that later.

This most likely influenced the decision to drop the charges against Harb in May 2016, and later Brazeau in July 2016.

Although Duffy was eventually acquitted of criminal wrongdoing, him returning to the Senate has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

Nonsensical Acquittal by Vaillancourt At Trial

CLICK HERE, for the text of the ruling.

That is actually its own article, CLICK HERE. It is too long to do properly here.

Posted on

Diversity 101: RCMP Looking To Drop All Standards For New Recruits

(Another Case Of Diversity Trumping Merit)

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are facing a personnel shortage, and have come up with an interesting solution: drop all standards, and focus on diversity. No, this is not an exaggeration.

1. Proposed Changes

1/ Criminal record may not be a barrier to entry
2/ Credit problems not to be a barrier to entry
3/ Aptitude testing to be eliminated
4/ Hearing tests to be reduced or eliminated
5/ Vision tests to be reduced or eliminated
6/ Long stints at the acadmeny (training) to be reduced
7/ Focus to be on recruiting women and visible minorities

This CBC article, article is very difficult to parody, as it reads as one. Also, the comments are well worth checking out.

2. Article Quotations

The RCMP are taking a radical look at their recruitment strategy and could ditch credit checks and the ban on recruits with criminal backgrounds to help them rebuild their depleted ranks.

The Mounties have been plagued by staffing challenges in recent years and are looking at how to convince more women and visible minorities to don the red serge.

An internal document, obtained through access to information, suggests credit checks, the criminal background ban, the two-hour aptitude test and long stints at the training depot could all be eliminated from the hiring process as senior ranks try to make a career as a Mountie more attractive.

The document notes that some of the mandatory requirements can create barriers for communities the force wants to attract, including “groups more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”
It asks: Are we “tuned-in or tone deaf?”

The review exercise is the brainchild of Vaughn Charlton, the director of gender-based-analysis-plus with the RCMP.
She was brought over from Status of Women Canada in April 2017 at the request of then-commissioner Bob Paulson and tasked with focusing on gender and inclusion within the force.

“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

“If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.”

For example, someone coming to the force later in life might not be able to spend 26 weeks at the training depot in Saskatchewan. Credit checks — long part of the RCMP security screening process — can be a barrier for single parents or those who’ve been forced to take long-term leave, said Charlton.

Staffing crunch

The document also flagged hearing and vision tests and long shifts as potential barriers and questioned the value of the aptitude screening assessment — which, among other things, tests memory, logic, judgment and comprehension.
“I can definitely say we are looking at everything really seriously,” Charlton said. “These are questions worth asking and thinking, ‘Are they still relevant criteria in 2019?'”

So far, Charlton said, her questions have gone over well with top brass.
The recruitment review exercise is ongoing with no set deadline, she said. The entrance exam is getting its own fairness review through the Public Service Commission.

“I think the challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security,” Charlton said.

‘Race to the bottom’

When Commissioner Brenda Lucki took over as top Mountie earlier this year, she was warned in a briefing binder that “the RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands.”

The briefing note says that in the last five years, there has been a “dramatic” increase in the number of new recruits required to fill operational vacancies and evolving program requirements.

The RCMP says that in 2018, 21.6 per cent of regular members self-identified as women and 20.8 per cent of members above the inspector level were women. According to a 2017 report, about 10 per cent of the force identify as visible minority and eight per cent are Indigenous.

Time for civilian governance at RCMP, watchdog says in harassment report

Analysis: Toxic culture, harassment issues overshadow RCMP commissioner’s tenure
Christian Leuprecht, a Royal Military College professor who has written about the RCMP’s structure, said public service organizations like police forces are plagued by cumbersome hiring processes and low pay. On top of that, the RCMP have been plagued in recent years by allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation within the ranks.

“What this all points to is that the RCMP is going to have to change the way they do business, both as an organization and in particular in the way they recruit,” he said.

But Leuprecht cautioned against dropping too many of the mandatory requirements simply to raise the number of applicants. In an age of complex cybercrime investigations, terrorist threats and sophisticated organized crime operations, he said the force needs to ask itself how it can bring in more of the country’s top minds.
“The discussion is always about, ‘Well what can we do to kind of eliminate some barriers to this race to the bottom?'” he said.

“The RCMP is the largest police organization in the country and it is also our federal police force. This needs to be the force that shows the greatest professionalism, the greatest competence and that needs to position itself as an employer of choice and an employer that affords equality of opportunity to all Canadians.”

With files from the CBC’s Kathleen Harris

3. Thoughts On The Proposal

(1) Dropping the prohibition against people with a criminal record is non-sensical. Having a “pardoned” criminal record is one thing, but letting actual criminals in to do the policing?

Additionally, there are way too many questions here:
(a) Which offences will be grounds for exclusion?
(b) Will there be any specific cut-off, or is it case by case?
(c) Will there be a waiting period before a person can enter?
(d) Will people on parole or probation be allowed to enter?
(e) If an ex-con has a firearms ban, will that be waived?
(f) If an ex-con has a driving prohibition, will that be waived?

(2) Credit checks are used in places like banks. When putting someone is a position of trust, it is important to have some knowledge that they can manage finances, and will be less likely to abuse that trust.

Furthermore, ”employment credit checks” do not show anywhere near as much information as say, getting a check for a loan or credit card. These ones are severely restricted in the information disclosed, as it is to measure trustworthiness, not the balance on your cards or mortgage.

(3) Dropping the aptitude test? Do we not want some intellectual standards for RCMP recruits? If a person cannot meet a basic entry level exam, then excluding that person, or people, is in the best interest of the organization. It does raise the question though: is this an attempt to gain more ESL recruits?

(4) Hearing and vision tests are useful, since your physical health and sense are essential to one’s ability to do the job. Further, given how dangerous and gruelling policing can be, physical strength and stamina are needed.

(5)Yes, being away from the family for 6 months can be a burden, but training to be a police officer is a serious commitment. It cannot simply be gutted.

(6) Who cares how many people are women (or trannies identifying as women), or how many people are of a particular background? The focus should be on creating a strong force of intelligent, fit people with good moral character. The rest is just pandering to identity politics.

(7) “”….If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.””

If we’re going to have mandatory requirements? These people seem uncertain about that. Also, the above criteria are VERY important in selecting police recruits.

(8) Assuming the claims of a culture of harassment are true — fire any and all people engaging in behaviour and focus on building a force with better decency. Don’t eliminate standards. This is sort of like having Problem “A”, and coming up with Solution “B”.

(9) Why change the way you do business? Again, terminate the bad apples, but don’t make it open-recruitment under the guide of ”inclusiveness”.

(10) An interesting point is made: in an era where technology and crime is becoming more sophisticated, do we want to be LOWERING our IQ entry requirements?

(11) Regarding the obsession with Gender-Based Analysis: no one is saying that women should not be police officers. Rather, their abilities should be valued more, and the focus on being women should be stopped. This is a frequent straw-man lefties use: assume any difference in stats is due to discrimination, and not due to personal choices.

4. Moronic To The Extreme

This quote says it all:


“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.

The challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security.

– Vaughn Charlton

Yes, we need to focusing on diversity and inclusion as much as security. So, people with criminal records, poor credit, low IQ, lack of commitment, poor hearing/vision, etc…. are just “another form of diversity”?

Enough of the endless pandering. Simply hire good quality recruits. If needed, make the compensation and benefits package more attractive. Offer flexibility in work locations. Don’t water down the standards.

Again, pretty difficult to parody this article.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #3: Ignoring the “Root Cause” Of Domestic Violence

(Plans are in the way for a “muslim-women” only shelter)

CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

This could have been put in the last article. However, after some thought, it deserves an article all to itself.
CBC is puts out a lot of controversial stuff, but this article has to do with promoting the start up of a muslim only domestic abuse shelter. That’s right, a domestic shelter specifically for muslims.

“Muslim women and children fleeing abuse could soon have access to a specialized shelter catering to their cultural and religious needs.
.
While there are many organizations in Calgary offering services for Muslim women escaping domestic violence, there are no specialized shelters.
.
Nisa Homes — a project of the National Zakat Foundation, a registered Muslim-focused charity in Canada — is in the process of raising money to rent or buy a five to six bedroom home in the city that would help accommodate what it says are a growing number of vulnerable Muslim women in Calgary.”

So, how bad is this problem?

Research by her organization found some shelter providers in Calgary found up to 40 per cent of women seeking help were visible Muslims. Many are new immigrants and refugees and can be socially isolated with few friends and no family in Canada.

While that seems like an extraordinary amount, it should be noted that muslims make up only about 3% of the Calgary population.

Let’s do some math: suppose you have a city with 1,000,000 citizens, which would mean 30,000 muslims, and 970,000 non-muslims. Now, suppose there are 1,000 incidents of domestic violence in a year. That means that 400 of those incidents would involve muslims, and 600 would involve non-muslims.

Now, those 30,000 muslims would have been involved in 400 domestic violence incidents, or about 1333 per 100,000 people. The 970,000 non-muslims would have been involved in 600 domestic violence incidents or about 62 per 100,000 people. Comparing the two groups of 1333 and 62 per 100,000, we divide and (1333/62=21.5). We get about a magnitude of 21 or 22.

So on a per capita basis, muslims commit 21 or 22 times the number of domestic violence that non-muslims do. Let that sink in. Muslim families engage in more than 20 times the number of domestic violence cases that non muslims do. And this 40% figure is the one the CBC is providing (quoting the researcher).

These are not hate crimes perpetrated by one group against another. These are acts of violence committed by family members.

“Alberta has a very high rate of intimate partner abuse, it’s [the] third highest rate among the provinces,” said Arshad, adding that there’s currently an over-representation of Muslim women seeking help in Calgary.
.
“You have a lack of capacity here and in addition to that I have experiences of women who’ve used shelters but because they’re concerned about not having something that’s sensitive to their cultural and religious needs some are not seeking that support.””

To ask the very obvious question: why are you concerned about promoting these cultural values? Islam holds women in very low esteem: 1/ Honour killings are legal in parts of the world; 2/ Hitting a wife is accepted practice; 3/ Women don’t have equal rights; 4/ FGM is practiced; etc…

Instead of being “culturally sensitive”, these groups should be trying to de-Islamify the families. This culture or political ideology should not be nurtured, it should be erased. The authors, and CBC as a whole, refuse to approach the obvious conclusion: that a culture that promotes domestic violence directly leads to domestic violence even in another country.

However, the mainstream media will not address that. Instead, they stress the need to protect the cultural needs of the abused women and children, even though that culture causes the violence. The media will play the victim narrative instead.

Posted on

Dump Multiculturalism, Feminism Althogether

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgNChZrWNmI

(Putin: “We are a multi-ethnic country, but one civilization.”)

(Samantha Brick, possibly the UK’s dumbest feminist)

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Get Rid Of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism does not work.
It never has, and never will.

Seehere, the Multiculturalism Act.

”Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
Marginal note:Multiculturalism policy

3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to

(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

What this act does it promote, in fact legislate, that there are to be multiple societies within Canada. People are not expected to adopt a Canadian identity, but instead, Canada is expected to accept and promote other identities. Nonsense.

(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

That is right, we don’t want to have any sort of ”national” heritage. Rather, apparently we prefer to
have the country made up of individual cultural heritages. Not that it will lead to balkanization or anything.

(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

Again, reinforcing the idea that Canada is to have no unique identity, but to be a ”stew” of other identities.

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

This statement actually contradicts itself. If you are preserving and enhancing languages other than English and French, then logically, they are beginning to replace English and French.

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

This statement also contradicts itself. If you are advancing other cultures (whose main languages are not English or French), then you are promoting those other languages at the expense of English and French. Further, multiculturalism does not lead to harmony, but to division and segregation.

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(A) If a culture views women as 2nd class citizens? Do we embrace it?
(B) If a culture tolerates honour killings, do we respect it?
(C) If a culture traditionalises animal cruelty, do we celebrate it?
(D) If a culture views child marriages as tradition, do we allow it?
(E) If a culture allows cousin marriages/inbreeding, keeps the family ties, do we accept it?
(F) If a culture promotes killing of gays, do we celebrate it?
(G) if a culture calls for violence towards outsiders, do we turn the other cheek?

Under the multiculturalism act, yes, differences should be celebrated.

Interestingly, Quebec takes a different stand. They protect their French language, and they protect their French culture. However, multiculturalism and billigualism are forced on the rest of Canada, by Quebec, under a constitution Quebec never signed.

Further, this obsession with having no cohesive or unifying identity is also codified in the Canadian Charter.


Multicultural heritage
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

This article, was originally going to be included, but now is a separate piece. An extreme example of how promoting culture really misses the big picture.

This is not to say that people of different races cannot live together. That is possible. However, different cultures cannot co-exist. Vastly different social structures in a given area either leads to parallel societies, or it leads to segregation and balkanization. Both are harmful to a nation. Here is an idea brought up in earlier articles.

CIVIC NATIONALISM: People joined by abstract ideas such as laws, values, freedom, equality, and justice.

ETHNO NATIONALISM: People joined by identity such as race, ethnicity, culture, tradition, customs, spoken/written language, heritage, religion, spirituality.

Having common values and laws (civic nationalism) is important, but alone it is insufficient. There has to be something that actually unites the people. While this is not a call for any racial supremacy, there has to be some commonality (ethno nationalism) to make the society cohesive. While people understandably have different standards, here is one

(a) People in a society need to speak a common language.
(b) People in a society need to have a common culture.

If we have these 2 items, a society will function, although, the more devout would argue that there would need to be a third unifier:

(c) People in a society need to have a common faith.

Hate Crime Laws Divide By Identity

This will be the topic of a separate article. But here are the hate crime laws on the books in Canada.


Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

While this seems harmless enough, will legislation such as M-103 (Islamic Blasphemy) or C-16 (Compelled Speech for Gender Pronouns) do an end run around these terms?

Also, a quick glance at Provincial Human Rights Code (such as British Columbia, shows that it is all about dividing by identity.

3. Feminism Is Destructive

Also, one can make a very strong case that FEMINISM is also harmful to society. Of course, we are decades past the point where it is about fighting for equality (1st wave), and we are past the point of so-called ”reproductive equality” (2nd wave).

It is no longer about equality with men, but rather, supremacy over men, (3rd wave). Feminism no longer subscribes to be about an sort of cohesion, but that of privilege and domination.

This ”equality of outcome”, or affirmative action, is even enshrined in Part 15(2) of the Canadian Charter


Equality Rights
Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note:Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In short feminism allows women to demand to be on a level playing field with men, but still demand special treatment if the outcomes are not what they want.

Here is an extreme case of feminist thinking gone wrong:

The Article Samantha Brick, April 7, 2009
Normally the Daily Mail is not the best source, but this article was too great to pass up. Here are some quotes (in bold) and comments below:

“Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirtysomething high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily – then burst into tears and run for the ladies.

Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.

The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream – a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.”

Admittedly this intro is catchy, but one would get the impression that Samantha Brick had absolutely no clue about how women interact in groups. Did she not grow up with them?

“It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.”

The author will go on to elaborate at great length on these details. But the obvious question remains: why keep these women employed if they are this destructive? Remember, you did mortgage your home to get this building going.

“Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys’ network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

Gradually, what had started out as a daydream – wouldn’t it be great if there were no men where I worked? – turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.”

Again, from reading this, you would think that Samantha had absolutely no clue how women interact in groups. She also seems to buy the notion that men only succeed because they are men (sexism and patriarchy). Perhaps men on average achieve more because they don’t create drama, complete with: constant bitchiness; surging hormones; unchecked emotion; attention-seeking; and fashion rivalry. Am just quoting the author’s description here.

“In hindsight, I should have learned the lessons of my past – at my mixed secondary school I was bullied by a gang of nasty, name-calling girls, so I knew only too well how nasty groups of women could become.”

Now we get to the heart of it. Samantha Brick knew full well how women can be in groups, then decided to launch this all-female project anyway, using her mortgaged home as collateral.

“I hired a team of seven staff and set up an office in Richmond upon Thames, Surrey. While the women I interviewed claimed to be enthused by the idea, they still insisted on high salaries. Fair enough, I thought at the time – they are professionals, and I knew most of them were talented and conscientious because I’d worked with them before.
.
But within a week, two cliques had developed: those who had worked together before and those who were producing ‘new ideas’.
.
Most days would bring a pointed moment when some people were invited out for lunch or a coffee break – and some weren’t. Nothing explicit was ever said; the cutting rejection was obvious enough.

Even when we all went to the pub after work, strict divisions remained, made clear according to who sat where around the table and who would be civil – or not – to whom.

Fashion was a great divider, though in this battlefield everyone was on their own. Hideously stereotypical and shallow as it sounds, clothes were a huge source of catty comments, from sly remarks about people looking over-dressed to the merits of their fake tan application.

I always felt sorry for anyone who naively showed off a new purchase in the office, because everyone would coo appreciatively to their face – then harshly criticise them as soon as they were out of earshot. This happened without exception.”

Someone less idealistic who had their personal wealth (and home) tied up in this venture would have started looking to replace these women after a week or two. It is not worth dragging down a company, and these women are clearly too petty to be productive.

“My deputy, Sarah, the general manager, first showed how much style mattered when she advertised for an office assistant and refused to hire the best-qualified girl because she could not distinguish Missoni from Marc Jacobs. This girl would have been making tea and running errands. But I didn’t challenge the decision not to hire her because I had a policy of picking my battles carefully.”

Had that been me, Sarah would have been let go that day. A manager who refuses to hire good talent for such a trivial reason is not someone who should be a manager. However, Samantha doesn’t see that she shows the same flaw: not dismissing a poor manager because she wants to ”pick her battles”.

“Employees considered it acceptable to take time off for beauty treatments – and not out of their holiday allowance. One girl regularly came in late because she was getting her hair coloured, and when I mentioned this she blew up in outrage. Though at least she had a reason; most just turned up late regardless, and huffed ‘That’s the time my train gets in’ if I pointed at the clock.

In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people – I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly.”

At least Samantha is taking some responsibility for allowing this to happen. However, a half way decent boss would have let them go a long time ago.

“Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn’t want to be the ‘bad cop’.

Despite being in charge, she was scared at the prospect of being bitched about – it was as though, in a women-only environment, staff were unable to keep their defined roles.

Soon, arguments became a daily occurrence. It would start with snide comments between two people then, as others joined in, emotion and anger would grow until an eruption – shouting, screaming, swearing – which always left someone in tears.

Then the friends of the woman who was upset would follow her to console her, leaving one group in the office and another group in the ladies. Both would then bitch unreservedly about each other – and do absolutely no work.

It reached the point that I even wrote a handbook for staff on how to be nice to each other. The advice centred on being respectful to everyone and treating people equally – taking phone messages properly whether the call was for me or a junior.”

Again, Sarah should have been let go. She is clearly not management material.

Samantha needs to own up for this. If this is becoming a daily pattern, and no work is getting done, I would be getting new staff (and a new manager) lined up right away. Remember, you did re-mortgage your house for this,

“But the biggest force wasn’t personality type, it was hormones. When one woman started having IVF, she unleashed her rage without warning and without apology.

At ‘that time of the month’ – which in an office staffed only by women meant someone was always at that point – any bad mood was swiftly passed on to the rest of team as if by osmosis.”

Still waiting for some justification as to why these women haven’t all been replaced. For all the whining about how men are only on top because of discrimination, Ms. Brick provides example after example of how an all-women workforce causes nothing but problems. These issues do not exist in male-majority places. Hence, there may be a valid reason that there are more men in management.

While skipped over in this review for expediency, the actual article does provide many more examples of the problems caused by this all-female staff. And remember, the author tells us that they were “very accomplished” women.

“In this climate, I didn’t dare employ any men because of the distraction and – even worse! – catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I’m afraid it’s what I found to be true.

And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees – because they have an easy ride in TV – if I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men.”

And this takes us to the final blow: Samantha Brick has learned absolutely nothing from the experience. She “stands by her reason” for creating an all-women workforce, because men have “an easy ride”. It had nothing to do with the 1/ constant bitchiness; 2/ surging hormones; 3/ unchecked emotion; 4/ attention-seeking and 5/ fashion rivalry so fierce it tore her staff apart. These are the author’s own observations.

It never seems to dawn on her that perhaps men are having an easier time because these issues don’t come up, or at least nowhere near as often.

When Ms. Brick refers to this group as “accomplished women” I really have to wonder how detached from reality she is. They seem like 14 year old children.

4. Final Thoughts

Though the article contained several topics, there is one theme that was hopefully clear: unity. We need a society that is strong and cohesive, not something that divides along gender, linguistic, cultural, or other grounds. What we need, as Canadians, is a national identity. Not some mash up of ”whatever” or ”diversity is our strength”, but something that is unabashedly ours.

Multiculturalism, feminism, (and separate hate crime laws), do nothing to bring us together as a society, but rather make the divide bigger.

The video of Vladmir Putin and the Samantha Brick article were added to contrast two very different ideas of unity.

(1) While the Brick case is extreme: it does help to illustrate the point that merit should be the driving factor in employment, school, or any other competition. Affirmative action, quotas, or accepting everything “as diversity” are really bad ideas.

(2) Vladmir Putin, by comparison, comes across as very reasonable and realistic in this video. Someone who actually puts country ahead of such pettiness.

Posted on

Representing Yourself in Court (Review)

(How to Win Your Own Case, by Devlin Farmer)

This is basically an instructional book written in 2015 for those wishing to represent themselves in court.

Unlike An Advocacy Primer, covered in September, the Farmer book contains much more basic information, and is much more simplified. It assumes that the readers have little to no knowledge about how the court proceedings work, and is a lot more reader friendly.

An interesting Supreme Court ruling, Pintea v. Johns, came out in 2017. It codified the obligations of Justices, Judges, Masters, and Deputy Judges to ensure that self-represented litigants are getting fair treatment in court. In fairness to the author, it was 2 years after the book was published.

A Brief Outline of The Book
Part 1: Alternatives to court
Part 2: Learning the law
Part 3: Filing
Part 4: Lawyers
Part 5: Discovery
Part 6: Motions and temporary orders
Part 7: Pre-trial prep
Part 8: Trial proceedings
Part 9: Witnesses
Part 10: Exhibits
Part 11: Closing arguments
Part 12: Intro to appeals

By no means does the book actually prepare someone for the court. However, by explaining what is happening and why, the self-rep is able to prepare him/herself and more thoroughly understand the process.

The book is written a very basic level, yet contains a wealth of information necessary for a potential self-represented litigant to face the court. It also avoid legalese and jargon. As such, it is very readable to anyone with adult reading skills.

This book stays away from specific forms and names, which in this case is a blessing. Better to understand the process more than to be bogged down with memorization.

The book is published by “Self-Counsel Press”, which releases many self-help and how-to books on a range of topics. Overall, they are very readable. They are not tedious or intimidating at all. This publisher releases some very good content.

If you are facing (or initiating) a court case, this book will do well to helping the average reader understand what is happening. At a minimum, if you do choose to get legal counsel at some point, reading this book beforehand will enable you to make better choices. Also, you are less likely to be gouged for fees.

Overall, this is a highly recommended read for anyone with any interest in court procedures.

Posted on

Critical Thinking #4: “Essentials of Argument” (Review)

(Essentials of Argument, by Nancy Wood)

This is another review in the series on critical thinking. So, far, it is the 4th article.

Here are the previous entries on the topic:
CLICK HERE, for #1, Honest v. Dishonest Debate Tactics.
CLICK HERE, for #2, Logical Self Defense.
CLICK HERE, for #3, Critical Thinking for Dummies.

Why do we spend so much time on the topic of critical thinking? Because understanding the law depends (at least theoretically), on understanding the creation and reasoning behind it. The more we know about that, the more in depth we can go, and either apply the law, or lobby to have it changed.

Hence, it is the skill itself that is essential, not necessarily the individual arguments themselves.

This book is different in that is has a largely academic undertone to it. Being able to research and analyse issues for classroom and presentations is a large theme of it. A main focus is writing persuasive and well reasoned essays.

The Wood book also goes through screening and selecting authors for their work, and trying to compare their findings with comparable authors. A lot of time is spent trying to break down opinions and express them clearly, and in a well reasoned manner.

It makes a great deal of sense. If one is writing a school essay, or a Master’s thesis, or PhD. dissertation, coherent reasoning is essential. You wouldn’t want the people reviewing your work to claim that it is illogical or makes no sense.

Further, the book gives examples of strengthening your own arguments, while attempting to fend off opposing arguments, or reasoning that could commonly be used to rebut your claims.

As with other books, there is also a section (Pages 147-150) about logical fallacies, such as:
(a) Begging the question (lacks evidence);
(b) Red herring (irrelevant and misleading evidence);
(c) Non sequitur (it does not follow);
(d) Straw man (mischaracterising someone’s arguments);
(e) Stacked evidence
(f) Either-Or;
(g) Post-hoc
(h) Generalization
(I) Ad Hominem
(j) Guilt by association
(k) Using authority instead of evidence
(l) Bandwagon appeal
(m) Slippery slope
(n) Creating false needs

This is part of the list that would also be found in the Reed website, which is almost exclusively devoted to dishonest debate tactics. Here, Ms. Wood has a small section on them.

A Brief Outline of The Book
Chapter 1: Recognizing argument and finding issues
Chapter 2: The rhetorical situation
Chapter 3: Research into issues
Chapter 4: Writing exploratory papers
Chapter 5: Toulmin model for argument (parts)
Chapter 6: Types of Claims
Chapter 7: Types of Proof
Chapter 8: Writing the research paper
Chapter 9: Writing the Rogerian argument paper
Chapter 10: Visual and oral argument

There is a fairly interesting topic near the end regarding presentations. This can be applied to both school and work settings. It gives guidelines for how to set up clear and logical presentations without being overwhelming, a useful skill to have.

My only real criticism of this book is that for the most part, it is an exceptionally dry read. To be fair, there isn’t much that can be done to make it exciting. But while it is dry and rather dull, the information presented is quite valuable, especially to students and academics in general.

Nonetheless, devoted students would find it worthwhile.