Of Smoke and Mirrors

As the government discusses the regulations for the legalization of marijuana, I wonder if this policy will make life better for those who require the drug for medicinal purposes, or will it endanger the lives of ordinary citizens. In my opinion there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the Liberal’s statement in the throne speech that said: “the Government will introduce legislation that will… legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana.” 

Trudeau and his friend Obama, in their own words, have both used drugs, including marijuana. In a blatant political move to gain the votes of legalization proponents, Trudeau made the promise to legalize the drug. The problem is that now that they are in power, the government is finding out that to implement a promise may be a little more difficult than they thought -  hence the ambiguity from the former Toronto Police chief, and Liberal MP who said that “there was no hard and fast schedule to the legalization timetable.” 

While proponents of legalization seem to be overjoyed by the governments promises, there remains many unanswered questions as to the effect of legalize marijuana on society. While a judge in British Columbia has ruled that users of medical marijuana can grow their own weed, growers of medicinal, we have yet to see rules about industrial grow ops. All the while there are many shops growing around the country and local governments have yet to get a grip on their establishment and locations.

From a safety point of view, the public knows very little about the effects of driving under the influence of marijuana. Cases of accidents caused by drivers under the influence of the drug are growing across North America. There is more young people smoking marijuana, and some may graduate to harder drugs. Further studies may be required to determine whether marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs.

However this is not what this piece is all about. Rather I want to bring to the fore the hypocrisy of governments. Taking a page from the temperance movement which saw prohibition of alcohol in North America, many groups attacked the use of tobacco. Lawsuits, new regulations and restrictions have been used to curtail the use of smoking in public and even in private (in cars). Bars and clubs were made to build special smoking rooms, and now a new ban on menthol cigarettes is envisaged. All the while governments everywhere increased taxes on tobacco products in the guise that they were protecting citizens’ health. Alcohol and tobacco became the preferred method of raising governments’ revenues; they approved a special ‘sin tax’.

As people switch from tobacco to ‘vaping’, and the use of the ‘hookah’, once again governments saw a source of revenue and placed the new electronic cigarettes under the same rules as tobacco. However they ignored studies done in the UK that shows that vaping is 95% less harmful than tobacco smoking. In fact it helped to curtail smoking habits

The same people who opposed tobacco are now silent on the use of marijuana. No more talks of the harm caused by ‘secondary smoke’. Politicians who have been on board to ban tobacco now support the legalization of marijuana. Under the pretext that the drug will be used for medicinal purposes there now is an increase support for new growing and distribution industry. Companies like Tilray are now operating in Nanaimo- BC. There are some 300 applications for new distributors of medicinal marijuana. The truth be told it is reported to be a possible $10 billion industry. What a new source of revenues and taxation! While the federal government states that the revenues will be used for law enforcement and other platitudes, provincial governments, it seems, will be able to pocket the revenue and appropriate it to general revenues.

I am neither a proponent nor opponent of tobacco or marijuana; however I am a strong opponent of government’s hypocrisy. In my view people should decide for themselves if they want to be smokers or not. The onus should be placed on those who break the law. If it is found that marijuana falls under the same negative and dangerous influence as driving under the influence of alcohol, we should ban its use. Governments should not use the subterfuge that they are looking after the interest of citizens, when clearly ultimately it is their intent to find another source of revenue and raise taxes.

 Citizens should beware of apple pie and motherhood promises made by politicians, because in my view it is sheer hypocrisy.

Political Correctness: The New Bane of our Existence?

The English language is being transformed by the media and academics who are influenced by political correctness as they manipulate the proper use of language. Our society is being changed through the indoctrination of our youths in an education system which has lost its relevance due to the leftist, unionized personnel. We are gradually creating a pampered, sheltered and cocooned generation.

In politics as well as in everyday life, there is an increasing feeling that more and more people are being offended. Today it seems that any word can cause consternation among one group or another. Discourse and serious debate is being stifled because certain words have become anathema. Our universities are advocating and creating many policies that accommodate certain groups and ban others on campus. It is now becoming prevalent that universities and schools provide ‘safe places’ for those students who feel offended or aggrieved by the behaviour or statements made by those they disagree with.

Universities, once a place for intelligent and even adversarial discourse is now being used to muzzle certain groups and discriminate based on political correctness. Our education system no longer promotes individual thinking, but rather stimulates ‘group think’ activism.

Words are analysed and selected to promote discourse. But today, more often than not certain words are being disqualified from the vocabulary because they are deemed to be offensive. The media has been increasingly in favor of this trend. Newspapers and TV broadcasts have chosen to self-censor because the reporting of certain words may offend one group or another. The result is that the news and real information is being moderated to the point that the truth is not being reported.

Conservative views are being ostracized, even banned on campuses, while leftist and liberal views are being promoted and elevated despite the views of a silent majority. Examples of faculty and university policies which discriminate and stifle debate abound. Recently, students who believe that chalk writings supporting Trump on the steps of a campus were so  offensive, that the faculty decided that those students should be provided a ‘safe place’ to shelter their fragile self-esteem,

While it is allowed to have ‘pro-choice’ and LBGT demonstrations, conservative and pro-life protest are banned on many campus grounds. It is not the cause of the protest that matters, but it is the decision to allow or ban protests that matters. Universities used to be a place for promoting differing ideas and opinions which in the long run shape society. Today it seems that only politically correct views are the only ones accepted on campuses.

Once language is being monitored and censored on campuses and even in high schools, it becomes very easy for politicians to use the same tactics to stifle debate. It is becoming extremely difficult for some politicians to express their views and policies because they may be accused of racism or xenophobia by their opponents. Increasingly the left has adopted the word ‘phobia’ to ostracize their opponents. The dictionary definition of ‘phobia’ is (forming abstract nouns denoting fear or aversion of what is specified.) To this effect more and more we see or hear labels and words like xenophobia, islamophobia and homophobia,’ white privilege’, ‘black lives matter’,  etc. being used in political debates not to explain the positions but rather to close the discussion.

On the other hand, many leaders like PM Trudeau and President Obama, who are terrorism deniers, are given a pass when addressing the slaughter of people by Islamist terrorists around the world. They have addressed the acts of terrorism as ‘workplace violence’ or ‘terrorism has root causes that must be addressed’.  To obfuscate their cowardice, they often characterized their critics of   lslamophobia - once described by the late Cristopher Hitchens as “A word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons”  At the same time these leaders have declared that climate change, which has been going on for centuries, and not terrorism is the greatest threat to mankind. I would define this position as ‘climatophobia’.

By contrast it is refreshing to see that some people are beginning to challenge the use of political correctness. We should applaud and support people like Connie Levitsky, who was fired by the plus-size women's retailer Addition Elle, for using the word ‘fat’, and who refused to take her job back, when the company apologized for their behavior.

For those who are still perplexed by the rise of Donald Trump they should look at themselves. This phenomenon is the backlash to years of mass media political correctness and manipulation of the news by the left. The media’s Trumpophobia is here to stay as many people are starting to rebel against the political establishment which has taken them for granted for too long.  

Politicians and academics can create an atmosphere of fear or optimism through the use of words. Language evolves, however political correctness should never be used to stifle debate through the lax interpretation of language.

Has Justin Trudeau Devalued the Canadian Citizenship?

The introduction of new immigration laws by the Liberal government, which will overturn existing law that was duly passed by the Conservative government, may change the value of a Canadian citizenship forever.  As a proud immigrant and Canadian citizen, with no other citizenship, I am very worried about the changes being made by this government. Should other Canadians be worried too?

Some of the criteria to become a Canadian citizen include that:

· You must have resided in Canada for at least three of the last four years.

· You must not have any criminal prohibitions.

The previous Conservative government made changes to some rules under Bill C-24, which included government powers to revoke citizenship of dual nationals convicted of specific crimes, including acts of terrorism, high treason and spying offences. Britain and 20 other European countries have similar laws in place. Previous to Bill C-24 Canadian citizenship could only be revoked in cases of fraudulent applications, mostly to restrict the practices of arranged marriages.

The newly elected Liberal government, in their strategy to reverse anything done by the previous government, proposes new legislation that would change the rules for citizenship. Proposed laws would restore citizenship to anyone affected by the existing law.  Convicted terrorists will now be able to keep their Canadian citizenship, which means that Zakaria Amara, convicted in 2010 as ringleader of the Toronto 18, can apply for parole this year and could also be eligible to re-apply for his Canadian citizenship.

.

In keeping with father Trudeau’s strategy, the newly elected government is back to their manipulation of the immigration system to score cheap political gains. They plan other changes which will allow citizenship applicants to count up to a year's worth of the days they spend in Canada as non-permanent-residents (PR).

In addition the new legislation proposes to repeal the intent to reside provision, and reduce the time required to be spent in Canada for citizenship for adults to three years (1095 days) within the five years before applying for citizenship. Physical presence which was for 4 out of 6 years before the date of application will be changed to 3 out of 5 years before the date of application.

The Liberals also want to eliminate the language test for older immigrants and start handing our Canadian citizenship to people who don’t speak a word of French or English. Existing law already allows an exception for elderly immigrants. Anyone over the age of 65 does not need to pass a language test in order to become a Canadian. The new legislation simply lowers the exemption from age 65 down to just age 54.

The result will be that the Liberals want to eliminate the language test for older immigrants and start handing our Canadian citizenship to people who don’t speak a word of French or English.

Coupled with the policy of bringing in 25,000 refugees from Syria, now the government
proposes another 300,000 influx of immigrants’ spouses, refugees to the detriment of skilled workers.

Moreover, the Prime Minister goes to New York to pander to the United Nations and takes the opportunity to announce that the government will lower the OAS age to 65 from Harper’s 67 years. This is a decision which is contrary to most countries which have increased their age limit to 67 or 68. This decision combined with the influx of older immigrants eligible to CPP without ever contributing to the Canadian economy or paying taxes in Canada will put an undue burden on the economy and costs of CPP and OAS.
 

Suppose the new refugees, having acquired dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship go back to Syria, which many could well do, it means that a return of conflict may require the Canadian government to engage in a huge rescue to bring them back.

A Canadian passport and citizenship meant that citizens travelling around the world were welcomed everywhere, mostly without visas. Changes that allow terrorists to maintain their citizenship may put law abiding Canadians under further scrutiny and undue travel requirements even from friendly nations.

All these changes to the Immigration Act are nothing but old Liberal manipulations of the law to get ethnic votes. Moreover any changes to the election Act to introduce proportional representation is to further change the Canadian political landscape forever, as refugees are scattered around the country to change the demography of certain constituencies. Compassion and humanitarianism are noble traits, but to use them for gerrymandering purposes is insidious, devious and deceptive.

Pandering to the United Nations immigration and refugee policies have unintended consequences. As PM Justin Trudeau changes the laws to suit his government’s political agenda, Canadians should ask themselves: What is the cost and value of a Canadian citizenship?

The Future of Canadian Conservatism

On February 27, 2016 while the Conservative elites were at the Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa, I was speaking at the smaller but not less important FreedomTalk Conference in Edmonton. Both conferences were about the same thing: how can conservatives regain the upper ground. The following is an excerpt of my speech:

In the words of HRH Queen Elizabeth II, 2015 was Annus Horribilis for Conservatives in Canada. We lost federally and in Alberta, and today we do not have one government with the name ‘conservative’ in the country. The question is why?

Let us get something out of the way immediately I am not PC. That means not politically correct, not a pretend conservative, and not a progressive conservative. I am a small ‘c’ common sense conservative pure and simple.

In my view, as expressed in my book Conservatives Dead or Alive? I start with the theory that the day that Obama was elected President of the US, it was the day that conservatism began its downward spiral. The whole world backed by a liberal mass media embraced this man as if he was the second coming , awarded him the Nobel Peace prize without any known accomplishment, and embraced his policies as if they would fulfill his promise of Hope and Change.

Conservatives around the world and in Canada got themselves boxed in on every policies they put forward, the world wanted to mirror Obama’s policies, and conservatives to their detriment, in most cases, just went along to get along. But let us get to the more pressing issue of how conservatives could get the upper hand back. First we must acknowledge that we made mistakes and eliminate our weaknesses, and identify and increase our strengths, and second get out of the habit of shooting each other.

Having said that, I am more optimistic about the resurgence of Conservatives at the Federal level than I am for our provincial parties in Alberta.

Despite people like Dandt Tent and Andrew Coyne who continuously try to lecture conservatives on how they should behave, Federal conservatives have a solid foundation to build on and they also have an inept government with a neophyte and vacuous PM to deal with. What the party must do is to take their time and choose the right leader to take us into the next election.

 There are not too many changes to be made to the past policies but what is absolutely necessary is for the new leadership to articulate and explain to the public why they should be the alternative. More importantly they must attract the millennials, not with promises of more entitlements but with solid policies that will guarantee their economic future.

 In Alberta the rift among conservatives is theoretically huge, but in effect the so called PC and Wildrose have more in common that they have differences. The major obstacle to any unite the right movement in Alberta is the constant and persistent attempt by members of the establishment to insert themselves into the discussions.

There are so many organizations promoting themselves as intermediaries to get the parties to talk that in effect it is causing confusion among grassroots party members. Then we have Preston Manning injecting himself into the debate; this after having taken part in the destruction of the PCs and the betrayal by many of the Wildrose members when he supported their defection to the Progressive Conservatives under Prentice. Remember that Mr. Manning has tried to unite the right in the past and failed miserably each time and in effect it took years before Harper could remake the conservative movement and govern the country for ten years.  Despite accolades from many quarters, a close examination of Mr. Manning’s involvement in conservative politics shows that he has been a distracting rather than a positive force in Canada’s conservative movement. His latest foray into Calgary’s Municipal level was a disaster that left many right thinking Council candidates stranded when he folded under attack by Mayor Nenshi and apparently left for Australia in the middle of the campaign.

So what is the future of conservatism in Canada? In my view it is very bright provided we take stock and not make the mistakes of the past and fight among ourselves.

First we must remove any allusion of being Progressives but act more like libertarians

Progressive conservatism is an oxymoron. You cannot be progressive and conservative at the same time. Clinton,Sanders, Notley, Mulcair, May and Trudeau are progressives. Should conservatives adopt their policies? I sure hope not.

At the provincial level, any new name should only have Conservative in it and nothing else. We must distinguish ourselves by being compassionate conservatives not progressive conservatives.

A compassionate conservative believes in teaching a man to fish so he can feed himself for a lifetime and not be fed by government for a day and ever. This is the policy that creates dependency and entitlements, not independence.

 Social conservatives should focus on healthcare, education and security as the social goals and responsibility of conservatism. As for the issues of LBGT, same sex marriage and abortion they are wedge issues that the left uses every time that they want to get conservatives off balance and divert their leftist failures from scrutiny.

As law abiding conservatives we should respect the existing laws that have been adopted on these divisive issues, but we must fight to have our alternative point of view respected. It is the freedom of speech that we should be fighting for. A religious leader has the right to express his opinion. A politician has the right to have his values respected without being hounded by self-interest groups. For individuals to oppose a leftist point of view does not make them bigots, racists, xenophobes or homophobes. It just makes us different. Isn’t that diversity?

Conservatives must fight for a better health care system. Private care exists and it should be made available to any citizen if they so wish. Canada spends a large percentage of its GDP on health and yet we still have long wait times and excessive drug costs.

Our education system has been infiltrated by union activists who now dictate our curriculum. Our children are being indoctrinated in leftist thinking without parents having a say. The Conference Board of Canada gives us a “C” for the number, just 21.2 per cent of university students studying science, math, computer studies and engineering. The bigger question is what is the other 69% studying? Is Canada going to be competitive in a technology driven economy?

What good is social security if you are being attacked and cannot defend yourself?  To me a strong military and police force is at the root of a conservative government. The protection of its citizens is social conservatism.

The path to success is very simple. We must remove any allusion of being Progressives but act more like libertarians. We must embrace true conservative principles of small governments and less taxes, and free market principles. We should embrace some of the fundamentals of libertarianism such has the freedom of speech. And most of all we must adopt Reagan’s 11^th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Conservative.”

History has showed that the left always asks for compromise when there are in the minority, but never exercises compromise when they are in power. Conservatives can compromise on process and procedures but never on principles.

As I conclude, I would like to leave you with this thought and appeal. In the context of Alberta politics I would like to ask Mr. McIver and Mr. Jean which duo would you like to be remembered for : Harper/ McKay or Manning/Clark?

Remember that unity is strength; it is the only move forward.

How to ruin a country in 100 days or less

With a new government it is expected that changes will happen. However to make wholesale reversal of the previous government’s policies without any intelligent thought about unintended consequences can be downright dangerous and detrimental to the country. Justin Trudeau has done just that!

The election of a new Liberal government under the leadership of a neophyte is producing results that may ruin this country for generations to come.

Having been advised by Obama operatives during the electoral campaign, expect policies based more on ideology rather than common sense.

This new government will embrace multilateralism and make decisions to please the world rather than protect the country and its citizens. The UN will determine how we do things in this country. Starting with the decision to bring 25, 000 Syrian refugees without any planned strategy has already produced consequences that will affect both the refugees and Canadians. We have homeless and disaffected veterans and yet the refugees are being given priority on housing, healthcare and financial assistance, While Europe has started to see the negative effects of its policies towards refugees who may have been infiltrated by terrorists, Canada willy-nilly continues with its feel good policy which could endanger Canadian security. Furthermore a change towards citizenship that may no longer require refugees or immigrants to have knowledge of at least one of the official languages will put pressure on the work force and the education system.

As for the foreign policy with regards to the Middle East, this government shows that it has absolutely no understanding of the gravity of the situation. As a terrorism denier PM Trudeau’s  decision to repatriate the 6 CF-18 from the combat zone, and increase the number of boots on the ground is not only risky, but places more Canadians in arms way. Despite the fact that Iran and North Korea are collaborating on missile and nuclear build up, the government has decided to start diplomatic relations with the rogue state of Iran, in the hope that Canada will benefit from trade deals. This has already shown to be flawed as Iran chose Air Bus over Bombardier.

On the economy, we have yet to see a budget, but we know about the promise that Canada will produce deficits and create debt the size of which are not determined. With a global glut in oil and gas, this government has shown absolutely no backbone in promoting Canada’s resources. In fact Trudeau has chosen ‘resourcefulness’ over resources. The result is obvious: massive unemployment in the oil, and mining industry, and soon in other industries as a ripple effect. In a PR effort to look good in front of the world, Trudeau and a cohort of 383 delegates promised the world that he will change Canada’s policy to help climate change. Provinces that depend on the resource industry who have for years been the backbone of the country’s economy will be severely affected. Alberta, once the economic envy of the country, will become a have-not province, and Newfoundland may be bankrupt within years. Lives will be affected, but to this government the environment, foreign aid to the third world, and ‘selfies’ with Hollywood stars seems to be more important.

The promise of billions of infrastructure money to provinces to kick start the economy, does not include pipelines. This government does not understand that the oil and gas industry is still very important to the Canadian economy and will be required for many more years. To ignore the need for pipelines, both East and West, is purely based on ideological beliefs. In addition the new rules for consultation for pipelines are just rhetoric and postpone decisions that should be made now and not protect this government hate for carbon.

The change in policies regarding First Nations(FN) and Unions will no doubt kill any semblance of transparency that the previous government required from these institutions. More money will be spent on First Nations without addressing the real issues of dependency. Those in charge of the finances will continue to reap the benefits while ordinary FN citizens will continue to languish in poverty and squalor. Throwing money at the problem will solve nothing. A complete revamp of the Indian Act and the abolition of reserve policies are required. Like Quebec we should be looking at new agreements that will curtail any federal funds within 12 years.

Trade Unions, in many cases have outlived their existence. While the freedom of association must be guaranteed, the right to work should be put in place. No longer should union dues be used by union officials without the permission of the membership. A worker should have the right to designate where his/her dues should be spent. Unfortunately transparency does not seem to be high on this government’s agenda.

During the next three years, Canadians should take note of the changes that this government will put in place. Many of their decisions will be to affect the demographics, financial status, and electoral eligibility through gerrymandering tactics. Any change to a proportional representation electoral system will guarantee that a Liberal government will be for ever.  The positive part of this new government is that many of their promises will not be fulfilled, either because they do not work or because they were full of platitudes which did not make sense. The negative side is that many of these government policies may change this country for the worse, and it would not have taken them 4 years to do it. Hopefully in four years Canadians will remember that feel-good governments do not necessarily a country make, and the ‘selfie’ PM will be sent packing to a new drama gig, where he always belonged.