Free speech in Canada except when we talk about Muslim values

Kellie Leitch was right to bring up the topic of screening immigrants and refugees for Canadian values — a topic I wrote about last week here and here.   Leitch was right because it has opened up the opportunity for a national debate — finally.

Of course, the progressives and liberal media are all over Leitch for daring to bring up the topic. Their favourite put down, it seems, is to compare her views to those of Donald Trump. This is laughable because Trump has millions of supporters and could very well win the U.S. election in early November 2016.

All the criticism ignores reality. There was a recent Canadian poll,  for example, that showed 67% of us think we should do more to screen immigrants. Then, of course, there is the inconvenient truth that Canadian values include “free speech.”

Strangely, no matter how many Islamic terrorism episodes we see happening throughout the Eastern and Western world, the media doesn’t think we should talk about them in realistic terms so that we don’t offend Muslims. Just imagine this type of politically correct reaction in the 1940’s when, as my mother has told me repeatedly, the media and political establishment talked freely about Nazi terrorism. I mean, terrorism is terrorism.

Anyway, for the latest:

  1. Check out the CBC’s “At Issue Panel” from Thursday, September 8th, 2016. In their second segment (Line 650), they talk about the motivation for Leitch to bring up this topic. All three journalists — Andrew Coyne, Chantel Hebert and Jennifer Ditchburn — couldn’t imagine why she had done so other than for strategic reasons. Huh? I mean, these are usually excellent mainstream journalists, yet they seem so out of touch with reality. Can’t they see why so many Canadians are scared about the society they are going to leave their grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Talk about head-in-the-sand thinking!
  2. Check out the Sunday Night Panel on Wendy Mesley’s National (above). The three panelists were John Kay of the Walrus, Adrienne Batra of the Sun, and Alamin Abdelmahood of Buzzfeed Canada. You can listen to the whole video but the key part is towards the end at line 11:14. Abdelmahood suggests that talking about screening immigrants from the Middle East is racist. Wow! Which motivated me to look up what he has written at Buzzfeed. As expected, he called Donald Trump’s ideas racist. The thing is, Islam is not a race, it is a religion and Muslims coming from the Middle East represent many ethnicities.

The crux of the matter is that screening immigrants is common sense. Talking about such screening is an aspect of “free speech” that we are allowed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  And, to throw epithets like “racist” in our faces is nothing but political correctness and extreme intolerance of differing views. I mean, imagine how Muslims would react if they were called racists simply for complaining about Christians!

Yes, one of the positives of Canada is that people of all sorts of ethnicities and religions are welcome to come to Canada, but, and this is a big but, they need to be willing to tolerate all Canadian values, not try to change our society to be like the wretched ones they left behind.




Kellie Leitch has forced debate re immigrants & Canadian values

kellie-leitch-2A few days ago, I wrote a post explaining how Kellie Leitch, a CPC leadership candidate, was right to want a national discussion about Canadian values in relation to whether or not immigrants and refugees should be vetted for those values. I was hardly alone. Many others have written the same message, including Candice Malcolm.

While it is true that immigrants coming legally into this country are screened for health and financial considerations, as far as I know, they are not asked whether they accept Canadian values.

For example, are they asked whether they agree with the value of free speech, the equality of men and women, and the rule of law under our Constitution (as opposed to Biblical or Shariah law). Certainly, refugees are not asked those questions. I mean, more often than not, they have no papers at all.

Yet, I watched the Power Panel of four journalists on the CBC’s “Power and Politics” earlier today and it was like there was something very wrong with Leitch asking a question related to immigrants and values. For sure, Host Rosemary Barton seemed nonpartisan and just asked the questions, but the journalists certainly were not. They all seemed to agree that, because a few of Leitch’s  fellow Conservative MPs disagreed with her opening this discussion, that she should just quit.

Talk about progressive bias. That journalist panel was suggesting, in effect, that Canadian politicians shouldn’t even talk about Canadian values — with the hint that anything goes or that to have such a discussion might offend someone.

Which makes me wonder how progressives like the four journalists on P&P view our military who are training foreign troops and/or risking their lives on behalf of Canadians. In fact, David Krayden has an excellent column on that topic today in the Toronto Sun. The military at home and abroad have a Canadian flag on their arm. He legitimately asks: Does that flag mean nothing?

Well, obviously to the military, it does mean something. It means that Canada values:

  • Freedom of speech,
  • Gender equality,
  • The rule of law under our Constitution,
  • Tolerance towards other views,
  • Freedom of religion, and
  • Freedom of political affiliation.

The crux of the matter is that today’s CBC P&P panel was wrong to suggest that Leitch simply quit the Conservative leadership campaign so that everyone will stop talking about Canadian values.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is only common sense that new Canadians, immigrants and refugees, not only know about our values but be willing to integrate into our society with a clear understanding of how those values will affect their lives.

For example, Muslims coming to this country have to understand they can only have one wife. Yet, as Tom Godfrey wrote in Sun Media in 2008 and updated in October 2015, Muslims were claiming social benefits for more than one wife. (H/T NewsWatchCanada).

Page separator

Endnote: While the Canadian media want Canadians to think that we don’t have an immigrant problem in terms of conflicting beliefs, the truth is out there on the Internet thanks to Google. For example, check out Jack’s Newswatch for his main entry on  “Canadian Values” by Candice Malcolm (also linked in my post above). His many sub-links under that main entry are all related to this topic as well. It may be inconvenient to the CBC but there “are” journalists who are asking the same questions as Leitch.

  1. In one recent column, The CBC compares Leitch to Donald Trump in the U.S. I agree with Leitch that such a comparison is unfair in that it has ntthing to do with who Canada accepts as immigrants and refugees.
  2. In another column published in 2010, Gerry Caplan of the Globe and Mail talks about Honour killings being worse than we thought.
  3. In yet another column, published sometime n 2012, Tobi Cohen, an expert on honour killings, says most such killings are done in the Muslim community. Specifically, he states:”The killing of one’s own child — usually a daughter — because her behaviour is believed to have brought shame to the family. It [can also be] the fate of some rape victims, as well as women accused of infidelity or premarital sex in countries such as Pakistan. But in the West, it’s increasingly popping up in courtrooms as first-generation Muslims struggle to balance the strict old-world ways of their parents with a desire to fit into a more liberal society.”

So, while I did not include the Canadian value of treasuring life and not believing in killing our loved ones for any reason, many immigrants still hold to these barbaric beliefs. Surely, they can be screened on this topic.

Kellie Leitch is right about screening immigrants re Canadian values

kellie-leitchKellie Leitch is currently running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, a position she is well qualified to hold.  She not only has political and governing experience but she is a well-respected pediatric orthopedic surgeon.

So, what precisely is so wrong with what she asked in a survey such that the entire political class thinks the sky is falling?

She apparently asked if Immigrants and Refugees coming to Canada should be vetted in terms of whether or not they accept Canadian values.

Well, duh? Is that not simply common sense?

I mean:

  • Do we really want people to come to our country who believe in honour killing simply because their female children want to wear western dress?
  • Do we really want people to come into our country who don’t believe women are equal to men?

Yes, I know, people can lie to be accepted. But, what we have here is a politically correct fear of asking — for one reason alone — of being called Islamophobic.

Why? Because the majority of immigrants from European countries, Australia and/or the East, once here, usually try very hard to fit in to Canadian society. Many Muslims from the Middle East do not.

In fact, oddly, Muslims from the Middle East try to make Canada into the hell hole country they left. Prayer rooms in schools. Acceptance of niqabs. Wanting Shariah law in family courts. I mean, take a look at this Google page and you will see to what extent some Muslims want to change Western society.

Anyway, does my telling it like it actually is make me Islamophobic and a bigot? No, it does not, because everything I say is true. What it does make me feel, however, is fear, fear that certain immigrants and certain refugees not only won’t agree to accept established Canadian values, but openly oppose those values.

So, Ms. Leitch, hang in there. Ignore the naysayers because you have the silent majority behind you.

One more thing, ignore all the politically correct naysayers regarding the so-called snitch line. No one, in all the time in the year since you made that announcement, has said what help is actually out there for any young female who is threatened with genital mutilation. No one. Meaning, instead of dealing with the issue, they sweep what is happening under a politically correct rug.

The crux of the matter is that political correctness is the biggest danger we have in our society today and I am thankful that at least one of the Conservative leadership candidates — Kellie Leitch — has the guts to stand up and say it like it is.

O Canada! Some of us continue to stand on guard for thee!

Toronto Star’s Rick Salutin doesn’t believe parents teach

School busesI know I was supposed to get an early start on the Labour Day weekend but after I read Rick Salutin’s column in the Toronto Star entitled “Parents are not their kids primary educators,” I just had to write something.

Wow! Truly, in the 40+ years I have been involved in both public education and teacher education, I have never read anything so subjective and simplistic, particularly from someone who is as esteemed and well-educated as Salutin.

And, I don’t believe it is just a difference of opinion. It is as though Salutin completely overlooks developmental and learning theory. Here, for example, are three quotes from his column:

(1) “You don’t ‘teach’ your kids what to do or how to be, but you play back to them the best in their own impulses and responses to the world and you do it appreciatively and enthusiastically.”

(2) “Yet being directive can work too, in fact almost anything can, depending on the parent. In that way it’s exactly like teaching. In either case there’s no one right way, since both are about relationships, which depend on the unique individuals involved.”

(3) “Let parents parent and teachers teach.”

I mean, Salutin says:”playing back to them” is something parents do. Well, that is what teachers do too. They call it brainstorming and decision-making. They also call it the”ah ha” moment — when a child or youth suddenly understands something.

Yes, I agree when Salutin says no one teaching approach is best. In fact, there is a lot of research on the role of teacher beliefs and attitudes about teaching, often referred to as “curriculum orientations,” in addition to the theories about development and learning I mentioned earlier.

However, Salutin seems to have forgotten that, under the Ontario Education Act, teachers are acting in loco parentis — in place of parents. Not the other way around.

Anyway, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is that it makes no sense at all to say that parents are not their child’s primary educator. Yes, children and youth spend many hours a day at school with their teachers but they spend much longer over their pre-adulthood with their parents and it is the latter, for good or bad, that influence them the most. To me, why anyone would think the opposite is certainly a puzzle.

Trudeau Liberals tell us “they know best” re our health care options

Cambie centreHere we go again!  The short-sighted, one-sided, political anti-private health care preaching is back. PM Justin Trudeau will be an intervener in a court case in B.C. that will start on September 6, 2016 related to the Cambie Surgery Clinic, a private B.C. hospital.

On what basis will the prime minister try to shut down the B.C. private option? By using a report that was commissioned by his government, that’s how. It is, of course, very negative and, in fact, compares the private option to a U.S. model rather than a European model like Germany.

Which is a real puzzle to me given that Trudeau doesn’t seem to have a problem with his home province of Quebec having private options? I mean, if one province can have private options under the Canada Health Act, and the sky has not fallen, why is it wrong for other provinces to want the same?

For example, what do Canadians do when the care they want or need is not available or not timely in their province or territory? Should our provincial plan not arrange for us to get the treatment we can’t get in our publicly funded system in the U.S? You’d think so. But, only in certain instances, it seems.

Check out this story. Trent Hills Mayor Hector Macmillan has a tumor which is killing him but, while he can’t have the timely surgery he needs in Ontario, OHIP won’t send him to the U.S.

I have a couple of personal examples too.

  • Three years ago I broke a knee and was told I would have had to wait three months for an MRI. However, I was able to get an appointment within two days with a Buffalo MRI clinic. It cost me $465.00 US which was worth every penny because I was able to begin physio treatment immediately. Technically, I should not have been allowed to have that option.
  • Last summer my husband discovered he had to have a hernia repaired. He had two choices, to get it done in the local hospital or go to Shouldice, a private hernia hospital in Toronto. He went to Shouldice and was glad he did because many of the patients he met there were getting their publicly done hernias redone. The fee was $1,000, which was reimbursed by our private insurance. Plus, even though Shouldice is private, OHIP paid a portion, just as they already do with hundreds of Ontario’s private blood and x-ray facilities.

Without a doubt, it would have been more helpful if the report writers had looked at what Quebec and European countries are doing regarding private-public health care, rather than being obsessed with everything the U.S. does.

The crux of the matter should be that, as long Canadians use their provincial and territorial health card, it shouldn’t matter if the service they are using is public or private.

Patrick Brown changes mind about scrapping sex ed curriculum

patrick-brown 1030ON PC Leader Patrick Brown just lost the 2018 Ontario election. Truly, the man is tone-deaf on what it takes to be a leader of a conservative party.

For example, there is an Ontario by-election in the riding of Scarborough-Rouge River this week on September 1st, 2016. A week ago he distributed a letter related to that by-election saying that, if the PCs were elected as the government in 2018, he would scrap the Ontario sex ed curriculum.

Obviously, that is what the majority of voters in that riding want or he wouldn’t have written that. Right? Whatever. I was delighted that he had finally found a policy topic to differentiate his party from the Liberals.

Wrong! Today he said that letter was a huge mistake and that he would not do anything with the sex ed curriculum.

Why did he change his mind? Obviously because someone got to him because today he claimed that if the curriculum was scrapped, it would bring about intolerance!

Intolerance? No. Political correctness? Yes. I mean, let’s face it. Everyone in Ontario today over the age of 21 who understands the birds and the bees somehow managed to get through elementary school without this new curriculum. What we missed was sexual and gender identity politics and it is a matter of opinion as to whether that makes us intolerant or not.

What Brown should have said was that he would “review” and “revise” the current sex ed curriculum, rather than scrap it.

Anyway, this is not the first time I have been disappointed with Brown. Right after he was elected leader, he said he fully accepted AGW — that the warming the world was experiencing (which it hasn’t been for over a decade which is another story) was man caused. Meaning, that if Ontarians get rid of the Wynne Liberal government, a Brown PC Government would be no different.

What amazes me is that Brown won the PC leadership rather than Christine Elliott. Yes, I preferred Elliott. But, I have given Brown a chance and all he has done is prove that he tries too hard to please everyone. Of course, while I certainly plan to vote PC in the next Ontario election, Brown is not a leader this blog will promote.

Page separator

Update August 30: Now Patrick Brown says he was completely unaware of the first letter because it was signed electronically. Truly, the more Brown talks about this the weaker he looks as a leader. However, what is even worse is what this flip flip two days before the vote will mean. As Brown admits:  “there is ‘significant opposition’ to the curriculum in Scarborough-Rouge River and that his position will likely cost his party votes there.” Duh?

Like I said in my above post, this man is tone deaf to the voters he will need to win government. It is like he is afraid to get negative feedback from the Liberals and the media. Well, if the PCs wants to win a majority or even a minority, Brown had better get used to it.

More here.