A Couple of Quickies …

 

First the Supreme Court of Canada:

They have done it again – just last week I did a blog on this rogue Court in regard to its ludicrous decision to strike down a Governments use of essential workers during strikes.

This after having recently given the RCM Police the right to unionize.  So come a strike – there is no one left to keep the peace. 

And now these Jurists in Santa outfits have abolished Canada’s law against Assisted Suicide.

In doing so, the SCC – are you ready for this – relies upon section 7 of the Charter which guarantees an individual’s ‘right to life’.

How the Court interprets – and 9 to 0 in fact, that the right to life includes the right to death – is beyond me and not only that, it gives protection to those who snuff out that person’s life.

One son called into chat line and told of his hospitalized father who was on dialysis that his doctor gave him over the weekend to agree to go off dialysis or he the doctor would forcibly take him off which would lead quickly to death.

The son said the old chap was not ready mentally to die – in fact they often went out of snacks – a beer and a cigarette together. 

The father died on the Friday saving him from participating in his own death.

And this was happening before the Court opened the flood gates.

Either life is sacred or it is not. 

To me it is sacred and the Court is dead wrong.

But regardless – this is not a matter the Court should be dealing with – it is a societal issue which must be handled by the Peoples’  Parliamentary Representatives.

It does though give new meaning though to Patrick Henry’s declaration in 1775 ‘give me liberty or give me death’.

Then – Dual Citizenship:

Just today, Mohamed Fahmy was released on bail by Egyptian authorities after Canada lobbied hard for his release.

For some reason the new Government in Egypt believed Fahmy was in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and he has been incarcerated for over 400 days - but whether he was or not guilty of an offence –  Canada should not have become involved.

Fahmy immigrated to Canada from Egypt in 1991 and after completing his studies and obtaining his Canadian Citizenship he worked outside of Canada and eventually became the Cairo Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera.

And his parents reside in Cairo.

Gives new meaning to citizenship of convenience.

But at the very least, since he has dual citizenship – Canadian and Egyptian – and since he is in Egypt – he is 100 % their problem – not ours.

As many of you know – I do not believe in dual citizenship – how can one possibly be loyal to two separate supposedly independent states?

That said, if he were living here in Canada and had broken our laws I would not take kindly to Egyptian officials sticking their noses in our business just because he was also one of their citizens.

Until dual citizenship is deep sixed – I am also willing to have Canada lobby other countries – say Iran – if one of our dual citizens ended up in jail there but that of course is conditional on him or her not also being Iranian.

So if you are a dual citizen and find yourself in trouble in your other citizenship country – don’t come whining to us which Fahmy continues to do to his discredit. 

 As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

Canada’s Terror Bill C-51 …Part 2….

 

Now some possible examples of how cases could be handled in this new legislative environment.

Some, you will see, are similar to recent events here in Canada.

Before I deal with this though I want to stress that as a Libertarian – my greatest goal is to see that there is little or no restriction when it comes to one’s enjoyment of the Fundamental Freedoms found in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• (d) freedom of association.

The greatest of these rights is found in 2(b) which encompasses the Freedom of Speech.

In regard to that Freedom – as I pointed out in an earlier Blog, this Freedom does not extend to permitting you to cry fire in a crowded theatre unless of course the joint is in fact on fire. But beyond that, there had better be a very good reason to limit what people want to say.

Sadly, in the case the Jihadists – there is a very good reason for further restrictions … We Are At War With Them.  

So keeping this in mind – lets look at the following five examples and see how they could / would be dealt with given the current state of our law and the about to become into effect - Bill C-51

Case One:

Jihadist /  Muslim / Islamic Terrorist sneaks up on a unarmed guard at the grave of the unknown soldier here in Ottawa and cowardly shoots him in the back.

He will be charged with first degree murder and will not be eligible for parole for at least 25 years.

This has nothing to do with the host of our terror bills – the criminal code provides for this penalty as it has since the death penalty was abolished back in the 1970s.

If I had my way – the Jihadist would be sentenced for life without the eligibility of parole.

Case Two:

Jihadists / Muslim / Islamic Terrorists plot to blow up a Via Train and on route are caught with their plans and instruments of destruction.

Again the appropriate charge is under the Criminal Code – section 465 (1)(a) allows for a life sentence for everyone who conspires with anyone to commit murder.

Here as well I would insist that life in prison means just that – life with no possibility of parole.

 

Case Three:

Same set of facts as in case 2 save for the fact that the Jihadists in our case 3 are still in their planning stage – that is to say, they have not yet set out to do their dirty deed.

Under the previous Terror Legislation they could be held in custody for 3 days if the police was able to convince a judge that there will be a terrorist attack launched.  Under Bill C-51 they can now be held for up to 7 days if the Judge can be convinced that a terror attack may happen.  So 4 days longer and the test is reduced from will happen to may happen.

For me this is not a significant change and to top it off – these characters will be entitled to be release on a peace bond which, as I have mentioned previously, they are most likely to ignore with distain.

My solution here would be to lock them up for the duration of hostilities with the Jihadi Enemy.  We need our own Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre.

Case Four:

Jihadist / Muslim / Islamic Terrorist goes on line to explain how to build a simple but deadly bomb and then encourages all Muslims to build and deploy it and to kill as many infidels as possible.

It is currently illegal to counsel or actively encourage someone to commit a specific terrorism offence and with the introduction of Bill C-51 it broadens that ban to include promotion of terrorism or the international advocacy of it.

The offending Jihadist would be subject to a maximum prison sentence of up to five years in prison.

Slap on the wrist anyone?

By now you will likely have caught on to my solution that is to say, lock then up for the duration of the Jihadist War. 

 

Case Five:

My final case will no doubt be the most problematic for our left wing friends.

Bill C-51 nor does any other laws of Canada deal with the ‘Ordinary Jihadi Sympathizer’. 

So what do you do with the dolts who express admiration for the actions of Islamic Extremists such as ISIS?

We have seen ISIS and their ilk – bury babies alive; gun down children in their schools; kill teenage boys watching soccer; rape, enslave and kill girls and women with abandon; behead total innocents for being non-believers and most recently, burn to death a caged Jordanian Pilot.  

And we have multitudes of Jihadi Sympathizers singing their praises.

So what should we do with them … are you ready for it … imprisonment for the war’s duration on the basis that they are established themselves as being treasonous 5th columnists.

If they can vocally lend their support to such barbarians and for whom we are at war – the Right to Free Speech and the other Freedoms should not exist.

Solution

• Given that there is nothing in current Canadian law to deal with the situation set-out in Case 5.
• And given the weaknesses I have identified in Cases 3 and 4.
• And given that all the Terror Bills now in effect here in Canada do not even define who a terrorist is … it could be a bunch of raging grannies.
• We in Canada should establish a Terror Bill just for application to the Jihadists and their domestic sympathizers.

Such a Bill would be a work in progress – adding Jihadists groups as required. It would initially include ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram and so on.

As new Islamic Terror groups are formed – they will be added to the list. 

Is This Likely?

No.  Our politicians do not have the guts to take this step given that they fear the blow back that will come from the left.

But that is not to say it would be wrong to do this.  In fact, should Islamic Terror continue to stalk the  world – the day may well come when our politicians will have no choice but to do so.

It will be little comfort to the families and friends of those innocents who will die simply because of their failure to act.

As I see it …

‘K.D. Galagher’ 

 

Terror Bill C-51 …Part 2….

 

Now some possible examples of how cases could be handled in this new legislative environment.

Some, you will see, are similar to recent events here in Canada.

Before I deal with this though I want to stress that as a Libertarian – my greatest goal is to see that everyone has little or no restriction when it comes to their enjoyment of the Fundamental Freedoms found in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• (d) freedom of association.

The greatest of these rights is found in 2(b) which encompasses the Freedom of Speech.

In regard to that Freedom – as I pointed out in an earlier Blog this Freedom does not extend to you  crying fire in a crowded theatre unless of course the joint is in fact on fire. But beyond that there had better be a very good reason to limit what people want to say.

Sadly, in the case the Jihadists – there is a very good reason for further restrictions … We Are At War With Them.  

So keeping this in mind – lets look at the following five examples and see how they could / would be dealt with given the current state of our law and the about to become legislation Bill C-51

Case One:

Jihadist /  Muslim / Islamic Terrorist sneaks up on a unarmed guard at the grave of the unknown soldier and cowardly shoots him in the back.

He will be charged with first degree murder and will not be eligible for parole for at least 25 years.

This has nothing to do with the host of terror bills – the criminal code provides this penalty as it has since the death penalty was abolished.

If I had my way – the Jihadist would be sentenced for life without the eligibility of parole.

Case Two:

Jihadists / Muslim / Islamic Terrorists plot to blow up a Via Train and on route are caught with their plans and instruments of destruction.

Again the appropriate charge is under the Criminal Code – section 465 (1)(a) which allows for a life sentence for everyone who conspires with anyone to commit murder.

Hereto I would insist that life in prison meant just that – life with no possibility of parole.

 

Case Three:

Same set of facts as in case 2 save for the fact that the Jihadists in our case 3 are still in their planning stage – that is to say they have not yet set out to do their dirty deed.

Under the previous Terror Legislation they could be held in custody for 3 days if the police was able to convince a judge that there will be a terrorist attack launched.  Under Bill C-51 they can now be held for up to 7 days if the Judge can be convinced that a terror attack may happen.  So 4 days longer and the test is reduced from will happen to may happen.

For me this is not a significant change and to top it off – these characters will be entitled to be released on a peace bond which. as I have mentioned, they are most likely to ignore with distain.

My solution here would be to lock them up for the duration of hostilities with the enemy.  We need our own Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre.

Case Four:

Jihadist / Muslim / Islamic Terrorist goes on line to explain how to build a simple, cheap bomb and then encourages all Muslims to build and deploy it and to kill as many infidels as possible.

It is currently illegal to counsel or actively encourage someone to commit a specific terrorism offence and with the introduction of Bill C-51 it broadens the ban to include promotion of terrorism or the international advocacy of it.

The offending Jihadist would be subject to a maximum prison sentence of up to five years in prison.

Tap on the wrist anyone?

By now you will likely have caught on to my solution that is to say, lock then up for the duration of the Jihadist War. 

Case Five:

My final case will no doubt be the most problematic for our left winger friends.

Bill C-51 talks about Terrorism but makes no attempt at applying it specifically to Islamic Extremist – those who have declared War against us in the West.

Lisa MacLeod has proven once again…

 

That there is little integrity or loyalty in too many of our politicians.

For those abroad – Ms. MacLeod is a member of our Provincial Legislature for Ontario.  Until late this week, she was a contender for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party but has now decided to withdraw from the contest.

And why? 

Because the Federal Member for her riding – former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird - earlier in the week announced his retirement from politics thereby opening up his Ottawa riding for another.

Lisa MacLeod anyone?

Yes, the dear lady is looking at it and why not – it would cut down on her commuting to Toronto each week and put her in a position where she could almost walk to work on Parliament Hill.

In saying she was in fact actively considering running for Baird’s riding she mentioned that there are important things for her to do here in Ottawa such as ‘being part of 2017  - 150th anniversary of the founding of Canada’.

It doesn’t get much bigger than that for a politician.  Why they’d get weak in the knees just thinking about all the photo ops such an opportunity would provide.

And of course at her press conference she said that everybody is urging her to take the jump from Provincial to Federal Politics.

Pretty hard for the dear lady to resist.

But hold on.  Today’s papers report that neither John Baird nor her neighbouring Tory MP the Honourable Pierre Poilievre appear to be on her fan bandwagon.  These two are the most important personages that a prospective candidate for the vacant riding would want to have on board.

It does make one wonder how strong her groundswell of support really is?

But what really irritates me in all of this is the fact that over the course of the Liberal Party Rule in Ontario – over the course of the last 10 years, dear Lisa has been in her Queen’s Park seat and has experienced personally and up close how disastrous that Liberal Government has been.

Why she even ran for the Tory leadership since she felt that she had the necessary credentials to finally wrest control power from the Grits and restore Ontario to its rightful place as the engine of our Great Nation.

But she was prepared to jettison all that for a shorter commute and of course for all those Sesquicentennial Photo Ops.

The beleaguered citizens of Ontario be damned.

As I see it …

‘K.D. Galagher’