Quebec - Canada's Ireland

In 1690, William of Orange resoundingly defeated the army of James II at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland. It was the beginning of the absorption of Ireland into what became the United Kingdom. Ireland was fully politically absorbed into the United Kingdom in 1801.

Less than 100 years after the Battle of the Boyne, in 1759, England defeated the French in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham at Quebec. This was the beginning of the absorption of Quebec and French Canada into what became Canada. That process was completed by the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

The Battle of the Boyne was to Ireland what the Plains of Abraham was to Canada. In both cases the defeated Irish and the defeated French refused to accept the defeat and its consequences, and resisted for hundreds of years the absorption of their state and culture into the English nation. Each adopted a slogan which reverberated for them, generation after generation. For the Irish it was "Never Surrender". For the Quebecois, it was and still is, "I remember".

The Irish eventually succeeded in 1922, some 232 years after the Battle of the Boyne, in establishing their own independent nation, the Irish Free State, in the southern part of Ireland. This became what is today the Republic of Ireland, a fully independent nation. The Republic of Ireland was born as a result of hundreds of years of Irish rebellion, terrorist attacks, fulminations in the English Parliament, and constant efforts at appeasement, peacekeeping and compromise.

In Canada we have had from Quebec a constant history of rebellion, terrorist attacks, fulminations in Parliament, and constant efforts at appeasement, peacekeeping and comprise. All of this has been accompanied by Quebec demands for more money from Anglo Canada, greater and greater independence, and a stunning lack of patriotism, or contribution from French Canadians to the rest of the country.

That the Quebecois have a different culture and attitude from the rest of the country is beyond rational dispute. The majority of Quebecois opposed military service in both WWI and WW2, despite the fact that the mother country, France, was under attack. Just today, the National Post reports that 64% of Canadians believe that the Israeli response to Iran/Hezbollah attacks is justified. On the other hand 57% of Quebecers feel the Israeli response is "not at all justified". Virtually an opposite result. Examples abound of similar disagreements on social and political issues.

For centuries, Ireland was a thorn in England's side. It became such a troublesome part of the United Kingdom that eventually common sense prevailed, and it was granted its independence.

Quebec has been a blight on the Canadian nation for an equally long time. It is a place where the people do not accept the same values as the rest of the country. It is a place which has skewed our politics for the worse at each election as our political parties curry favor from Quebec voters at the expense of all the other voters. It is a place that Canadians have never been able to count upon in time of emergency. It has always been a taker, not a giver, in the Canadian confederation.

There is a strong sentiment in many Canadians that Quebec must remain in Canada. This is an emotional, and not a rational conclusion. Canada would be far better off if Quebec became independent. Since the 1960's Anglo Canada has paid a net of over $220 billion into Quebec. That is a gigantic sum of money which could have done great things in the provinces from which the money was extracted, only so that it could be poured into Quebec.

There is a culture of corruption in Quebec which has demonstrated itself many times. Maurice Duplessis, the long time Premier of Quebec, is widely acknowledged to have been deeply corrupt. The corruption in the construction of the Olympic Stadium in Montreal has left debts for decades. The legacy of Jean Chretien is that he headed the most corrupt government of his century. Political corruption is, in fact, the most conspicuous export from Quebec to the rest of Canada.

Would Quebec suffer if it became independent? Ireland didn't. In fact it prospered, and it has become a internationally recognized success story. In Canada, Quebec has long been an ungrateful beggar, and more lately under Chretien has become a thief too. Can it survive without being on the Canadian dole? Of course, although it will have to learn, as Ireland did, how to encourage business, lower taxes, and create a healthy economic climate.

In 1995 Quebec came very close to voting for independence from Canada. The response from the Quebecois Prime Minister, Chretien, was to pour a mountain of Anglo money into Quebec to purchase its loyalty. No matter that purchased loyalty is worth nothing at all.

Canada should look long and hard at the Anglo-Irish experience and contemplate the parallels. Quebec will be a thorn and a pox on Canada decade after decade until it gains its independence. Independence is inevitable, and will be a good thing for both Canada and Quebec.

Some seem to think that Quebec will disappear if it becomes independent. Of course not. It will be right where it always was, and will not drift off into the Atlantic fog. There will be little change in our economic relationships, except that we will not be sending them huge sums of money. Ships will still sail down the St. Lawrence, although now they may have to clear customs if they land in Quebec. There may be some tariffs or transit fees, but Quebec cannot make them too high, or other routes will be found. The Maritimes will not be isolated or cut off.

Cultural exchanges will still occur and in fact will become more vibrant as Quebec becomes more Quebecois than ever before.

The useless and expensive Bilingualism programs can be thrown on the trash heap where they belong. We can dump the foolish Multiculturalism farce, forced on us by the presence of Quebec, which has resulted in the creation of a patchwork of Canadian tribes, and adopt some national ideals which have at their core the idea that our first loyalty is to Canada as a nation. That has never been possible so long as Quebec is part of Canada, since so many Quebois reject loyalty to Canada and its values.

It took Ireland 232 years to become independent after its defeat at the Battle of the Boyne. We should encourage Quebec to get on with it, support their movement to independence, and redefine the Canadian confederation. We'll all get along better, and be better off if we do.

On Political Correctness

It's been some time since my sense of outrage has prompted me to post a new item. My outrage was more or less constant when the Liberals were in power, and lying, stealing, wasting and mismanaging government was official government policy. The Harper government deserves a chance to provide honest and competent government, and for a bunch of rookies they have done remarkably well.

The Gwyn Morgan affair has revived my contempt for the Liberals and NDP and prompts this new posting. We all know that Gwyn Morgan, a man by all reports of high intelligence and moral character, great success, CEO of the Year, and an altogether admirable man was rejected by a 6 - 5 vote of a Commons committee considering whether his offer to head the new Parliamentary Appointments Commission for $1 a year should be approved.

Some months before in a speech in Calgary, Morgan had commented that immigrants from violent cultures sometimes bring that violence with them when they come to Canada. He referred to the notorious Jamaican drug dealer murderers in Toronto and the notorious Asian drug dealer gangsters in the West. Both the Jamaicans and the Asians have been written up many, many times in the media, and are a vivid part of the public consciousness throughout Canada.

Despite that, members of the Nerds and Dunces Party, the Libranos, and the Blockheads, played the racist card, claiming that Morgan was racist and unfit for the post because of those remarks.

Aside entirely from the venal, destructive, partisan politics of the political trash who supported this false allegation, it amounts to political correctness run amok. It is a clear example of the destructive nature of political correctness.

I once heard someone say that political correctness amounts to being polite to everyone, so what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is that being polite is not what political correctness is all about. Political correctness is turning a blind eye to any defect, shortfall, failure or crime of a favoured group. It is about making excuses for everything about that favoured group. If a member of a favoured group, drops out of school, deals drugs, and kills people, political correctness demands that he not be seen as a bad person, but a victim of society's failure towards him.

Thus we see Paul Martin, a stupid weak little man and a thorough failure as Prime Minister, saying that the Jamaican gangsters who gunned down a teenage girl on a crowded Toronto street before Christmas, didn't do it because they are vicious murderers, they did it because they are "excluded" in our society. There was absolutely no evidence to that effect, and in fact there is ample evidence that these Jamaican killers are able to roam free and do what they want in our liberal society. The absence of any need for evidence and rejection of reality is another hallmark of the politically correct.

The damage that is done by political correctness is that it prevents any meaningful dealing with favoured groups. The favoured groups are coddled, excused, and never called to account, no matter how they behave.

Further damage is done when political correctness is used as a weapon against disfavoured groups - like successful, white males, as happened in the Gwyn Morgan fiasco.

Those who employ poliltical correctness fall into two groups. Those who haven't thought it through or are ignorant of the facts, but see the favoured group through rose coloured glasses and will hear no critcism of it. They may be well meaning, but do harm by their politically correct attitudes. No group should be immune to constructive and fair criticism. Constant indulgence will rot that group, just as too much sugar will rot your teeth.

The second group who employs political correctness are the sort of hypocritical liars that we saw on the Gwyn Morgan committee. These are people who have an axe to grind, and use political correctness to grind it. They know they are lying when they make their accusations of racism, but they know they can convince well meaning people because they claim to be morally righteous. The sheer cynicism of people like this is despicable.

Speaking of cynical and despicable people, the MPs who voted against Gwyn Morgan's appointment were:

Peggy Nash - Nerds and Dunces Party - Ontario
Joe Volpe - Libranos - Ontario
Omar Alghabra - Libranos - Ontario
Raymond Bonin - Libranos - Ontario
Caroline St. Hilaire - Blockheads - Quebec
Louise Thibeault - Blockheads - Quebec

These people are destructive trash, unworthy of any public office. It is probably too much to hope that the voters of Ontario and Quebec will end their political careers, but they should.

It seems to me that whenever political correctness rears its head in conversation, the person who raised it should be called on it. Slap those rose coloured glasses off his blinkered eyes. Hit him with facts. Reject his false excuses. Don't let the likes of Paul Martin get away with talking about "excusion" being the reason that ethnic drug dealers are killing innocent bystanders on our streets. Don't let political correctness cause us to lose worthy people in our public offices. Take that political correctness and shove it into a convenient orifice of the person employing it. That will probably be around behind, since the poliltically correct tend to be assholes.

Canadians in Afghanistan

My friend Christie Blatchford's illuminating stories about her past three weeks in Afghanistan, embedded with the Princes Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry have caused me to think about what Canada is doing there. The PPCLI is Canada's most famous and rightly distinguished regiment, having an outstanding battle record from the First and Second World Wars, and Korea. We have put our best soldiers out there, so if anyone can succeed, they can. But have they? Will they?

Many other Canadians also question our presence there, and the politicians of the left are attempting to make political hay from these doubts.

In her story in the Globe today, Christie recounts how a school in Kandahar was closed for some time as a result of a "night letter" posted on the door by the Taliban, threatening the students and teachers with death if they attended the school. It remained closed until an Afghan National Police post was established next door, at which point the students and teachers felt safe enough to return.

This story makes it clear that Taliban terrorists are still able to operate with impunity in the second largest city in Afghanistan. They have not been eliminated despite years of occupation by a variety of forces, including ours.

My first reservation about our role in Afghanistan has to do with the government we are supporting. The media reports have been filled in the past week with the case of Abdul Rahman, on trial for his life before the official courts of Afghanistan, for the crime of converting to Christianity. It now appears that due to international outrage at his case, Rahman will be found to be insane, and released. We can expect to hear of his murder at private hands soon after, unless he flees the country.

The biggest source of revenue of the Afghan government is heroin. Afghanistan is one of the major world sources of opium, the product from which heroin is made. Should we be supporting a government that kills Christians and supplies the world with heroin?

When I was prosecuting narcotics dealers in Vancouver I thought it made more sense to simply purchase the entire crop of opium poppies in Afghanistan and Burma, and burn it each year. It would be cheaper than all the police and court effort to interdict the heroin supply around the world, and would provide the impoverished countries with the revenue they needed. I still think this is a good idea.

My second reservation relates to the approach being taken to destroy the Taliban.

There is no doubt that the Taliban should be destroyed. Its members cut off the fingers of women wearing nail polish, kill children for attending school, oppress women savagely, and commit numerous murderous crimes against the people. The Taliban is barbaric, primitive, vicious, and fundamentally evil. It and all its members should be destroyed, or the people of Afghanistan will live forever in abject terror as slaves to a psychotic cult.

It should not be forgotten though, that one of the most successful revolutionaries in history, Mao Tse Tung, said that the revolutionary (read terrorist) should be a fish in the sea, swimming invisibly in the school of fish. That is what the Taliban does. Its members live in the Afghan population, and the chances of a PPCLI patrol finding them is poor indeed.

It is only the Afghan people who can eliminate the Taliban. They must rat them out to the occupying forces, who must in turn deal effectively with the information, and protect the informers. In addition, the Afghan government must develop a trained, indigenous Afghan anti-terrorist force to go after the Taliban.

If our role there is to assist the Afghan government to develop its own anti-terrorist forces, then I think we are doing the right thing. If our role is to occupy the country and chase the Taliban with our own forces, I think we are engaged in a futile and never ending task.

If our role is to protect the Afghan population to the end that the people have the confidence to inform on the Taliban, we are doing the right thing. If our role is simple protection, without encouraging the people to get involved in anti-Taliban measures, then we are not doing much that is useful.

I do not support the current clamour for a Parliamentary debate on our mission in Afghanistan. That would be nothing more than a pointless opportunity for the loud Left to cast doubt and demoralization on our efforts. The mission is the government's responsibility. It behooves the government to think about what we are doing in a clear headed way, and to ensure that we are giving the right direction to our military mission.

I hope that the Harper government will remove my doubts.

Explaining Canada's medicare

A new friend of mine, who is distraught over the bureaucratic mishandling of her elderly mother's needs in the Calgary Health Region, asked me for information on how our government monopoly medicare system was established. This is what I wrote to her:

Canada's most socialist province, Saskatchewan, produced Tommy Douglas, who became a socialist premier there. He pushed government medicare, which became the law in the early 60's.

Medical care is a provincial responsibility. Trudeau, whose early writings and conduct make it clear that he was a communist sympathizer, wanted to consolidate power in Ottawa, and more particularly in the Prime Minister's Office. Since the federal government had more taxation revenue than the provinces, a deal was made between Ottawa and the provinces, whereby Ottawa would fund 50% of medicare by payments to the provinces, in return for which the provinces agreed to the Canada Health Act, which gave control of medicare to Ottawa.

Over the years Ottawa has chiseled its way out of the deal, and now funds only 14% of medicare, while still controlling medicare and maintaining the government monopoly by way of the Canada Health Act.

The Liberal Party has positioned itself for a long time as the champion of medicare, and has spread lies and used phony scare tactics to get votes, claiming that the other parties would destroy medicare, and Canadians would die of neglect because they would not be able to afford "American style" medical care.

The fact is that Canadians are dying every day because under government administration our medicare system is providing poorer and poorer service.

Because of the long and relentless campaign by the Liberal party, Canadians have been indoctrinated with the idea that government monopoly medicare is the only way to go. In fact the only other countries in the world that have government monopoly systems like ours are North Korea and Cuba, both of them totalitarian dictatorships.

At present, the Liberals, and NDP both have a dogmatic belief in the government monopoly medicare system. The Conservatives under Harper are stuck with the system for now because Canadians are so brainwashed about it that to make a change would produce hysterical reactions from the media and public.

Fortunately both Quebec and Alberta are working on new systems to improve the service to Canadians combining public and private medicare. It will, however, take a long time for the system to improve.Probably when the baby boomers start needing medical service and find how lousy it is for them, they will wake up to the fact that an alternative system is needed.

Government monopoly medicare is just one of the damaging legacies of the Liberal Party, which is the most corrupt political organization this country has ever seen. It is not just that they are corrupt. They are incompetent too, and have either stolen or utterly wasted billions of taxpayer's dollars in the past 13 years. All of this money, if left in the pockets of the taxpayers, could be used by them to get the health care they want and need, and I think you will see the Conservatives, if given a chance, moving in that direction.

Many arguments are thrown up to preserve the present government monopoly on medicare. One is that a lot of doctors will opt out of working in the public system, because working in a private system will give them better pay, and therefore a private system should not be allowed. I don't think that will happen. The situation we have now is that many Canadian trained doctors leave Canada for the US, because they can earn more there. If the opportunity existed in Canada for them to earn more, I think most of them would stay here, rather than pull up roots to go to the US. We would thus have more doctors, and the current extreme shortage would be alleviated.

Surely all educated and experienced people must realize, if they do any thinking at all, that to add a thick layer of government administration to the delivery of medical services has to add a great deal to the cost of delivering those services.

You have seen the Calgary Health Region office. All the salaries of the people in that large building, which services only Calgary, take away from the dollars available for real health services.

That's the way I see it.

Brian

Crossing the floor

My hero Winston Churchill crossed the floor of Parliament not once but twice during his long and outstanding political career. Both times it was on point of principle, where he felt compelled to depart from his party on an issue of the day.

There is nothing illegal or improper for a Member of Parliament to switch parties during his elected term, unless the motivation is less than principled.

Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin claimed that Stronach crossed to the Liberals on principle. This is clearly a blatant lie. She crossed over to the Liberals immediately before a confidence vote which would have unseated the Liberals, who needed every single vote they could get to cling to power. She was given an immediate cabinet post, for which she had not qualifications, as a reward. It was a clear case of recruitment and reward at a time of crisis for the Liberals. No principle higher than that was involved.

Stronach's move to the Liberals was not illegal, and there were no calls for her to resign and run in a by election. Conservatives rightly held her in contempt, but there was nothing they could do about it.

There is a difference in Emerson crossing the floor to the Conservatives this past month. True, he was given a cabinet post - the same one he had held as a Liberal.
He is clearly qualified for the job. It must be noted that his move to the Conservatives makes no political difference to the power position of the government. His vote does not change the minority situation. Political expediency does not apply here, as it so vividly did in the Stronach case.

Stephen Harper has said that accepting Emerson and Fortier into the Cabinet was an attempt to give representation to Vancouver and Montreal, which shut out the Conservatives in the election of January 23. That explanation has the ring of truth, especially considering the storm of criticism that Harper must have anticipated would arise from these appointments.

Harper made a judgment call. Whether it was a good one, remains to be seen. It has certainly raised hackles in the media and within the Conservative party. Despite all that, one thing is clear. Emerson's move across the floor was on principle, and was not a venal purchase of a vote to prop up a sinking government.

Considerations for the Special Prosecutor Office

One of the campaign promises made by the Conservatives was that they would establish a special prosecutor's office which would deal with crime committed by government officials. Crime of that sort, as we have seen over the past 12 years of Liberal corruption and crime, is rarely if ever prosecuted. It would be a sign of maturity of our nation if we took active steps to put crooked politicians behind bars.

The first thing that is needed in establishing such an office is to understand the complex steps involved in prosecuting any crime. There are two stages - investigation, and then prosecution. Here is a summary of what is involved:

The Prosecution Process
1. Investigation

The investigation of crime involves a variety of techniques used by police or other investigators which include
- informants
- undercover agents
- surveillance, in person or by video
- wiretapping, which will involve prosecutors obtaining judicial permission
- room or vehicle audio or video bugs, also involving prosecutors obtaining judicial permission
- search and seizure of documents and other items
- examination of and seizure of bank accounts, business records and telephone records
- witness interviews
- forensic analysis of fingerprints, handwriting, hair and fiber and other evidence

During the investigation, there is often consultation with prosecutors for advice on what evidence is required and should be obtained. Specially authorized prosecutors make applications to judges for wiretaps, video surveillance and bugs. Investigators themselves normally apply for search warrants.

When the investigation is complete, the investigators prepare a brief for presentation to the prosecutors.

2. Prosecution

Prosecutors prepare to present the case to a court by taking steps which include

- full review of the investigation brief, with consultation with the investigators
- review of the law in all pertinent areas
- consideration of the charges that the evidence will support
- evaluation of the admissibility in court of all items of evidence
- evaluation of the reliability and value of all witnesses
- consideration of the chances of success in respect to all potential charges
- drafting and filing the indictment
- preparation of a trial plan, with the sequence of witnesses and presentation of evidence
- preparation of witnesses through interviews and instruction
- preparation of notes for the examination of each witness
- organization of all documentary evidence, through computerized databases
- organization of other evidence, including a plan for the introduction of each item in court
- preparation of argument for anticipated objections from the defence
- preparation for cross examination of the accused or defence witnesses
- preparation of material to be disclosed to the defence
- preparation of arguments to deal with interlocutory Charter or organizational applications by the prosecution
- consideration of any plea bargain offers from the defence
- preparation of an opening statement to the court

All of these actions will take place before the first day of the trial.

Once the trial starts, it is incumbent on the prosecutor to stick to the plan for presenting evidence as much as circumstances permit, and to stay light on his feet to deal with events without losing sight of his goal.

Examination and cross-examination of witnesses is an art, not a science or an administrative task, and it takes great experience to do it effectively, especially with difficult, dishonest or reluctant witnesses.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the prosecutor will make a closing address to the court. If there is a guilty verdict, the prosecutor will speak to the matter of appropriate sentence.

It is evident from the summary above that in the case of government prosecutions, an adequate staff of highly experienced people will be needed to follow paper trails, organize evidence, and deal with layers of lies. The Conservatives must establish an office capable of dealing with highly experienced crooks.

Some of the questions which will need to be settled in setting up the special prosecutor office include:

Will the special prosecutor’s office use its own independent investigators (probably retired commercial crime police) or the RCMP?

How large will the office be? It will require experienced support staff and lawyers as well as computer equipment and operators.

Will the Accountability Act create crimes, or just impose duties without penalties?

Will the Accountability Act provide for suspension or dismissal of bureaucrats or elected officials when evidence of wrongdoing is found?

Will the Accountability Act override the Privacy Act and other statutes which provide a cloak for wrongdoing?

Will the Accountability Act provide for authorized surveillance and wiretaps to investigate crimes against the Act?

How will the special prosecutor’s office initiate cases? Referral from the government or Auditor General? From information received?

Will it have exclusive jurisdiction of any kind? Will it have the power to assume jurisdiction over police investigations?

Will it look forward only, or will it also deal with the Chretien/Martin criminality?

Over time, many more questions will have to be raised and answered. It will be a challenge to the new Conservative government to give the right answers.

The Secret Fears of the Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail has given editorial endorsement to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, as well they might. To endorse or vote for the Liberals is to condone, and in fact encourage, theft, deceit and incompetence on a scale never before seen in Canadian political history.

Despite the editorial endorsement though, the Globe news editors seem frightened at the idea of a Harper government. Most people read news stories because of the headline. Headlines have a considerable impact on the impression given by the paper as a whole, even if the reader doesn't read the story under the headline.

In the last month the Globe has given pretty even treatment of the political news, and no large complaint could be made about it.

Today, though, with the election on Monday, consider the headlines in the front section of the Globe - "The West wants in", "The West is in with a vengeance", "Tories would imperil right to abortion, Martin says", "US groups urged to keep quiet on Conservative victory", "Tories would curb access to abortion, activists warn". That is the majority of the political news headlines in this last edition of the Globe before the election on the day after tomorrow.

The clear impression is that the Globe news editors have chosen to highlight stories which will tend to cause voters to shy away from the Conservatives. They spotlight the hot button (and false) issues raised by the Liberals - abortion, US influence and Western dominance. The stories are selected and headlined even though there is no substance to them. The mere fact that some Liberal makes an unsubstantiated claim that Harper is a devil worshipper should not make it a headline in the Globe.

Despite its editorial endorsement of the Conservatives, it seems that the news department has a hidden agenda at this last moment before the election, and its secret fears have come out.