Category: *SOLUTIONS*

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

Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely

(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

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. Reasons To Dump The UN

The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

And they admit it here.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

(a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

(e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?

I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

Canada for Canadians.

Posted on

Offering Something To The Other Side

Disclaimer: At the current time, I am affiliated with no party. These observations where made in (what seems like) a very different time.

Maxime Bernier makes policy arguments about why he left the CPC: (a) Equalization formula being unfair; (b) Supply management screwing over Canadians; (c) Free trade not supported by CPC members; (d) Trade war looming with U.S. over NAFTA and tariffs; (e) Corporate subsidies, to Ford, Bombardier, and others, which are a form of welfare; (f) Bloating bureaucracy with new ministers; (g) Vote buying in individual regions; (h) Refusing to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for fear of offending; (i) Pandering to ethnic groups and identity politics to buy votes; (j) Relying on polls and focus groups rather than having principles; (k) CPC has become morally bankrupt and stands for nothing; (l) Politics should be done differently

Andrew Scheer makes personal arguments about why Bernier left the party: (a) MB refusing to accept his 2017 loss; (b) MB is selfish; (c) MB needs to offer ideas and never did; (d) MB is putting personal ambition over party success.

At 0:20 (in the top video), Bernier states: ”My job is to offer solutions from a conservative perspective. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting involved in politics?”

Here is the main point of the article. Bernier started the PPC in order to advance conservative ideas, and to offer an alternative voice to millions of Canadians. However, there are some conservative policies that can benefit more left leaning voters as well, if the benefits are discussed honestly.

In order to attract Canadians from all areas on the political spectrum, it is necessary to offer ideas that benefit Canadians from all sides of the political spectrum. Not to pander to any particular group, but to offer common solutions.

Here are some ideas: (1) Lowering immigration; (2) Questioning identity politics; (3) Promoting unity; (4) Dismantling crown corporations; (5) Environmental Protection.

#1: Cutting Immigration Benefits Low Income Canadians

This is not to assert at all that there are not benefits to limited and controlled immigration. And to preempt any such claims, no, it is not a call to racial supremacy. However, there are a number of valid arguments to support this position:

(a) The employment rate is a supply/demand type of issue. When the number of job seekers (supply) rises, then the relative need (demand) falls. It means more people competing for fewer jobs, and that employers are in a position to pay less. That impacts lower earners the most. This is not racial claim in any way, just acknowledging a fact: more workers for less jobs drives down wages. Ann Coulter explains it very well.

(b) As social justice types like to point out, people usually don’t commit crime because they are bad, but often because of poverty, society, and lack of opportunities. To a degree, they are right. By that logic, wouldn’t it reduce some of the stressers that lead to crime?

(c) Housing prices, likewise, are also determined in a supply/demand fashion. See this article. More people competing for the same amount of housing drives prices up for both buying and renting.

(d) School learning may be drastically altered depending on the demographics and size of the immigration. For example, in California, Proposition 58 overturned the requirement that school be taught in English. Many parents were outraged that American born students were now having lessons taught in Spanish. This isn’t bigotry. The U.S. is an English country. And who attends public schools as opposed to private schools?

(e) Publicly funded health care is something the left claims is fundamental to being a Canadian. And to a degree, they are right. However, with higher immigration rates, it will put a burden on Canada’a public system, especially for those coming from countries where health care is relatively lacking. This results in longer wait times, and it won’t be the wealthy in those long waiting lines. It will be lower income people.

(f) If less money is spent on immigration programs, then there will be more money available to promotes Canadians to have more children. Which socio-economic group would benefit most from that?

(g) Regarding illegal immigration, the above still applies, but with the added downside that it is a slap in the face to those who come through legally. It rewards people for breaking the law, and punishes those who follow the law.

#2: Ending Identity Politics Benefits All Canadians?

This could have been added to #1, but after some thought, it deserves its own category.

That is explained here, here, here, and here. We do not need race hustlers like this, or like this.

While this sounds great in principle, how does one protect their identity otherwise? When hostile and incompatible cultures move to your country in large numbers, is it not your identity that is threatened? Does your way of life not risk being replaced by people who are cohesive, and who vote as a block?

In some sense this sounds lovely, but is unrealistic. The idea of ending identity politics only works when everyone is willing to do it, which of course is not the case.

That said, it still is baffling how people who support identity politics are offended by the idea of a national identity. A nation is reflected by its people. Rather than standing as one unit (albeit with some internal differences), those would support dividing the nation into small tribes that consider each other enemies.

#3: Unity is Our Strength, Regardless of Your Politics

The whole idea of multiculturalism is absurd. Having nothing in common with your neighbours does not make for a strong society. Tolerating everything, including this, becomes more important than defining what a nation is. To repeat, we can have differences between people, and different groups of people, but there has to be something that binds us together.

Civic nationalism is the concept that a nation and its people are held together by civic values, such as freedom and equality. The nation are bonded by abstract ideas, which are shared and promoted within. There certainly is a strong case to made that values and laws bind us.

However, what makes one civic nationalist country different than another? Don’t they all support freedom, tolerance and equality? And besides values, don’t people need something to bond them? If not values, then identity?

Tucker Carlson argued at PolitiCon that a common language is a strong unifier. Vladimir Putin argued that religion is such a unifier. Writer Steve Turley argues that religion and cultural traditions are what hold a society together. Candace Malcolm wrote that diversity is only one part of the picture. Maxime Bernier himself tweeted about focusing on traditions. All argue a form of ethno nationalism. (And no, it doesn’t have to be about race). There are many of these types of unifiers, but the underlying element is that the people have to have something in common. Values alone is insufficient.

Nations have been splitting up over the last century because they had nothing in common. They were balkanised. One exception is East and West Germany reuniting because they had a common language and culture.

It would be far more productive than what the status quo to have an honest discussion about what unites us as Canadians, and how we can make the society more cohesive. Unity is our strength.

#4: Dismantling Crown Corporations Makes Things Affordable

In short, a private business must operate efficiently in order to survive. If it delivers poor service, strikes frequently, or has huge cost overruns, then it goes out of business.

A government agency, for the most part, does not have to worry about such things. It is being supported by the public, and usually holds a monopoly. If it is run inefficiently, just raise taxes. If the workers strike every year, oh well. If the service and employees are truly awful, it doesn’t matter, as they are the only game in town.

2 such examples are ICBC, and Canada Post. Privatizing services where possible leads to more affordable products.

#5: Protecting the Environment Benefits Everyone

The UN global warming summits are a complete hoax. Polluting is okay as long as you pay a tax, or fly tens of thousands of people every year to summits to discuss cutting carbon emissions.

However, that is not to say there are not significant issues to address. There are: lacks of clean drinking water in areas; forest fires in the west annually; issues around oil extraction and pipelines; air quality in some areas; hazards in mining; forestry and invasive species; and many other problems.

The environment should be of everyone’s concern regardless of whether you view it from: an individual point of view, or a societal point of view. Unfortunately, when money and politics gets involved, honesty is about the first thing to go.

Admission: I don’t know nearly enough to advocate for specific policies. However, this is an issue which we have a common interest.

These are just a few ideas to consider, but in order to run a society effectively, something has to be offered to everyone. That said, it is much easier if the society is more homogenous and intact. It prevents fracturing.

Unity is strength.
Diversity (of thought) is strength.

Posted on

Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Protections for Self Represented People

April 23, 2017 — The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the protection for self represented persons and accused people

Based on the 2006 Statement of principles from the Canadian Judicial Council, the SCC has enshrined these principles into law. See here, here, here, and here.

STATEMENT:
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote
access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.

PRINCIPLES:
1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

  1. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.

  2. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.

  3. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:

(a) explain the process;
(b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
(c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
(d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
(e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
(f) question witnesses.

This is great news, as Justices/Judges/Masters/JP are now obligated to go the extra mile in assuring fair process for those accused and self representing.

Self representing is an intimidating process, but levelling the field should go a long way to ensure better access to justice.  It should not be only for those who can spend lots of money on a lawyer, or who are able to spend huge amounts of time learning the law.