Wednesday, October 04, 2006


I'm not quite sure to make of this yet. In my gut, I think a Defense of Religions Act is a good, but in realpolitik will probably be more for optics in the next election then anything else.

If the Tories cannot win in the Commons on re-opening the issue of SSM, I cannot see how any act that defends religious freedoms can be won also. The same groups will vote along the same lines.

What is of note, is that it will bring out in the open what one of the goals of SSM was to begin with; to stifle the views of religious people who might dare to oppose it and the almighty voices on high of the radical secularist movement.

If religious people have nothing to fear from the proponents of SSM, then the proponents of SSM should have no problem giving religious people more protection. But we know they won't because we know what they hope to accomplish. Many of the fears that the opponents of SSM said would happened already have.

We have seen the Knights of Columbus targetted;

We have seen Justices of the Peace fired;

We have seen people get evicted from their homes;

We have seen teachers lose their jobs.

We have read the report the Liberals commissioned on how to sell polygamy to Canada.

SSM may be here to stay in Canada for our lifetimes, but know this, so is the debate about it. If the proponents of SSM, be they progressive, feminist, gay, academic or even 'conservative', think people of religious persuasions will just allow themselves to be bullied and skulk off into the night, as everything they believe in is mocked, ridiculed and reviled, they are fooling themselves.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006


There has been much talk lately of who would be the best candidate for the Conservatives to go up against in the next Federal Election. A week or so ago, a memo was reported by the Toronto Star that said the Conservatives feared Michael Ignatieff the most.

Now upfront, I have absolutely no connection to the Conservative Party whatsoever but my best guess is that the memo was deliberately leaked so that the tide would turn against Bob Rae, whom would have been more formidable. The fact that the author of the memo blithely stood by its contents when questioned, only fortified that impression on me.

With an Ignatieff led Liberal Party, the left/progressive vote stays fractured, splintered like a piece of wood that has just been pummeled with an axe. NDP'ers and left-flank liberals abandon the party while moderates and right-leaning Liberals stay or go with Harper, who is most likely to win. Ignatieff has many inconsistencies behind him and many quotes that can be used against him in an election. He also has not lived in Canada for good portion of his life.

Bob Rae on the other hand unites the left. Yes, some moderates and conservative liberals might leave but most NDP'ers would have no problem voting for Bob Rae. He would unite all 'progressive' voters and let's not fool ourselves, they far outweigh any other group in Canada right now.

Do not be fooled by the whole 'Ontario won't vote for Bob Rae' schtick the media is selling.

Point blank: Paul Bernardo could run for the Liberal Party of Canada in Toronto Center and the whole GTA would support him. 'At least we know he's not a social conservative' , they would rationalize to themselves and the 'cherniaks' of the world would go on parroting whatever line he fed'em. Same for Bob Rae. Oh, some rural Ontarians would take a pass and some bellweather ridings (ie. Peterborough) would stay Tory, but Rae is not the harbinger of Liberal doom that people are saying. It would be a tough fight. Of course he does have his drawbacks, but I think Ignatieff has more.

I have no idea who will be leading the Liberals in a few weeks, but I suspect if it is Michael Ignatieff, the higher ups in the Conservative Party of Canada will be very pleased.

Monday, October 02, 2006


Apparently there is a meme going around where people speak of the joys of feminism. Here are my thoughts.

I disagree with the version of modern feminism that says:

1. There is no such thing as gender and thus children should be indoctrinated into sexuality at a young age, thus robbing them of their precious childhood.

2. Women are liberated by being promiscuous, which of course means that they define themselves by their sexuality, not their intelligence. These women are hollow, shallow and vapid.

3. Women do not need any men to be happy, which of course has led to a generation of men into thinking that they can treat women as playthings because being promiscuous is 'enlightened and evolved' (see 2). Funny how all of the men I know who are the biggest feminists have dumped their girlfriends as they approach 30 and trade them for young nubile playthings of around 19 or 20.

4. Marriage is part of an oppressive, patriarchy which needs to be destroyed. This has led to a generation of women entering their 50's alone and bitter and feeling betrayed (see Maureen Dowd's recent book).

5. That all men are 'evil' and 'bastards'. This has led to a generation of women who take the worst character traits of men and apply it to themselves as the norm. Hence all of the high rates of women teachers sexually abusing young boys.

Everyone is for the 'equal work/equal pay' feminism, but this is not 1952 and modern feminism is a twisted, perverted view of human nature rooted neither in science nor morality.

That is why so many young women no longer call themselves feminists.