It’s A Sudbury Saturday Night…

 

Well at least the Liberal Government for Ontario wishes it was.

The Chief of Elections Ontario found today that the dear Grits have offended the Elections Law in the recent Sudbury By-election by bribing one of their own prospective candidates to not run.

I have been meaning for some time now to do a blog on this very subject but today’s announcement by Elections Ontario has forced my hand to get on with it.

The question I guess you are asking of me is did the Grits in fact break the law?

And the simple answer is of course they did.

But the ancillary answer is – of course they should have.

This has been going on since politics was invented.  Parties want to win ridings and if it takes a bribe to get a loser out of the way – consider it done – not just by the Liberals but by any party worth its salt.

The only thing the Liberals did wrong – as the saying goes – is that they got caught.

And they would not have been caught had the dud candidate not ‘taped’ his bribe conversations with two of the most senior Grit operatives.

No tape – No case.

Simple as that.

But there was and is a tape and Elections Ontario listened to it.

But there is more to the story.

This matter came up prior to the By-election and the tape at issue was given to the Ontario Provincial Police – you know – the guys whose Union campaigned so hard for Premier Wynne in last year’s Election.

How come then the OPP found no reason to lay charges after listening to the very damaging tape Elections Ontario did.

Good Question.

Could it be that the OPP is in the pocket of the Provincial Liberals?

Another good question and a good reason why Public Service Unions – especially police forces should never, never, be allowed to Unionize.

The matter now rests with the Attourney General – a Minister in Wynne’s Cabinet.

Should charges by laid by the AG?

Yes.

Will they – who knows.

I say “yes” – not because the Liberals did wrong per se – it goes back to the fact that they got caught and for appearances sake they must now face the music.

And although I understand why the Liberals and other Parties before them have quietly gone about this sinister work, they have only themselves to blame since they and their predecessors brought in this legislation which they knew then and know now will never be observed.

They have been hoisted on their own petard.

There is even more poetic justice in this turn of events.

Here we have the worst Government in Ontario history – with scandals galore and billions and billions misspent and now they finally get caught out on such small potatoes. 

Remind anyone of Mike Duffy?

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

 

Finally, the little guy in the White House..

 

And I agree on something.

Well sort of.

he is quoted as saying he is opposed to putting American boots on the ground in the ongoing fight against Islamic Terrorists throughout the Middle East and in many parts of Africa.

He does not specifically say the word ‘Islamic’ and it is thus often difficult to know who in fact he believes the enemy to be – but whoever he may secretly think they are – he is opposed to fighting them toe to toe – so to speak.

And, so do I.

If America does in fact do that for those countries affected, any gains made will be short term and will quickly dissolve over time – as they have wherever the US occupies countries however good their initial intentions have been.

Success will only come from the active participation of those affected countries – working hand in glove with the States and its other western allies. 

The affected countries have to supply the needed boots on the ground with the international force of outside countries providing support from sea and air.

It can also include – in some cases – temporary boots on the ground via special forces and here is where the little guy and I part company.

Special could be very effective in assisting affected countries in ridding specific areas of the plight of ISIS and their ilk.

This will only work though if it is done selectively – in and quickly out.  If it is overdone – it will amount to de facto occupation and will allow the host countries to sit back and let the Americans do it.

Success will only come when the affected countries get and stay involved.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

Here is one for you to decide.

 

A young Muslim woman has qualified for Canadian Citizenship Status but this past week refused to take the Oath of Citizenship because she cannot do so with a Niqab on.

She feels hard done by – discriminated against no less.

Prime Minister Harper is on record as saying we here in Canada must take such an Oath – unmasked and many in Canada agree with him.

I too am sympathetic to his position but nonetheless have some doubts.

My doubts stem primarily on why should anyone care what an individual wears during such a ceremony – as long as officials are certain the person taking the oath is the one and the same as the person who is entitled to citizenship.

This can be confirmed by a female official confirming beforehand in a private room.  Failing that – finger prints – iris scans and so one could, if needed, be used.

The main argument against being covered is the fact that generally speaking women should not be forced to cover their faces here in Canada when their male counterparts do not do likewise. In effect, if we allow women to do this, we are contributing to their subjugation.

But at the end of the day – it comes down to each Muslim woman deciding for herself whether or not she wishes to be so clothed.

The bottom-line here is that I could go either way so I turn this over to you to decide for me.

Having said that, there are several areas where I would not allow face coverings and one is in judicial proceedings where I know it is imperative that witnesses under oath have their faces uncovered to help ensure they are in fact telling the truth.

The second area is in teaching – there is no room in my opinion for teachers to have their faces covered since reading faces in the area of education – both from the teacher and student perspective -  is almost as important as hearing the words spoken.

The third area is with respect to financial institutions given the issues surrounding masked people being allowed to enter such places.

The fourth and final area is with respect to driving.  It is not quite as important as the first three since many cars now have their windows tinted so it is most difficult to recognize the driver in any event.  If tinted windows get banned – as I believe they should – then I would insist that here as well drivers should do their driving unmasked.

So – going back to the Citizenship Oath – I could go either way and would be prepared to defer to your collective judgment.

In regard to the other areas listed – I do not see much, if any, room for compromise.

As a Libertarian – the difference I see between wearing a Niqab at a Citizenship Ceremony and the other cases I have mentioned – is that in the case of the Niqab – the wearer only must answer to herself whereas in the other instances – others are or can be negatively impacted by her action.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

Munich Revisited.

 

This past week saw Russia and the Ukraine reach an agreement for peace in regard to Russian occupied lands of the Eastern Ukraine.

In the room overseeing the sell out, were Germany’s Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, President of France.

In the conference ending picture, Vlad Putin looks like the proverbial cat that had swallowed the canary, while Ukrainian President Poroshenko appears on the verge of throwing up.

Having been born post World War Two, I have often wondered about the Allied sell-out at Munich on September 30, 1938 wherein Adolph Hitler was ceded portions of Czechoslovakia in return for Chamberlain’s “peace in our time”.

The peace lasted less than a year – at which time the world was plunged into all out war.

With the events this past week in Minsk, I now have a better appreciation of those times some 77 years ago.

And I fear similar results.

I remember a year or so ago when Putin was about to annex Ukraine’s Crimea.  I attended a discussion group that day where the majority opinion believed that Putin would not proceed with his threat – to which I replied – ‘and who is going to stop him’.

In March 2014 it was a done deal.

In follow on meetings of our discussion group the majority opinion was that now that Putin had in fact taken the Crimea – he would go no further.

Again, I pointed out that there was no one on the scene to prevent that.

They squirmed in their seats.

And now with the Minsk Agreement – Putin has effectively annexed greater portions of the Eastern Ukraine.

And again the refrain – peace in our time.

If I was living in the Ukraine, I would not be in the streets celebrating – and in fact, its citizens are not.

And to make matters worse – this is not the only crisis facing the West …

Add to that - ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and of course Iran.

All the while the little guy in the White House and the Heavies of Europe look impotently on.

Where is today’s Winston Churchill?

All we have are a bunch of Neville Chamberlains.

As I see it …

‘K.D. Galagher’