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’

 

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.