Friday, August 31, 2007


I like that this is being announced just before TIFF.

The plot has just thickened in the Canadian film business.

Robert Lantos, Canada's only real movie tycoon, yesterday came riding back into the distribution business.
Suddenly the turf of independent Canadian distributors is getting to be a crowded, confusing field.

Lantos announced two new companies, Maximum Films International and Maximum Film Distribution, sending a clear signal that he is going into competition with the dominant Canadian film distributor he helped create.

"My roots are in distribution," he said in a phone interview. "This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a plan that will unfold over time."

The Canadian film industry is in far more dire straits then the American industry. I may critique many left wing American filmmakers, but at least they can make things that are commerical. At least in America there is always the chance that a 24, The Passion of the Christ or Transformers might squeak through.

In Canada, all we have are Don McKellar, Sarah Polley and Atom Egoyan, using public funds to make films that have zero interest to anyone but the elites in the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver corridors.

I have no idea where Lantos wants to take this, but he is a smart man. And he must know he will not compete with Alliance making the same old junk.

He must know this. He must know.

PS. I will be away for the long weekend without a computer. Any comments that are left will not be moderated until Monday. Have a great end of summer long weekend.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007


You said you thought John Tory's system is flawed. Why did you say that?

As with anything that receives government funding, the fact that it will have to conform to government guidlines means it could be watered down. That is a valid concern. But it also weeds out extremists.

Why do you think John Tory is insincere?

As I have said before, I like John Tory. Overall, he is a decent man. But he is not a real conservative. He has alienated the conservative base of the party and has tried cosying up to the media and the left. This is his token bone to PC social conservatives and attempt to woo socially conservative ethnic minority votes who might vote Liberal.

Why do you think John Tory is promoting it wrong?

He is trying to say Dalton McGuinty is an elitist for being a product of a Catholic educational system. It makes it look as though it is Catholics who are opposed to faith based schools. This is incorrect and rubs many practising Catholics the wrong way because they do not see Dalton McGuinty as a practising Catholic. McGuinty defines himself by his secular left-wing values. His percieved "Catholicism" has nothing to do with it.

Then is Dalton McGuinty an elitist?

At face value, yes. But I do not take McGuinty at face value. Political strategy is about thinking ahead; two steps more than the other guy. I think if/when he wins, he will use this criticism as an excuse to begin to dismantle the Catholic School System. That is what the secular left (his base) has been wanting for years. This would also appeal to many Red Tory's.

But what if Dalton really is for the Separate School system?

The Separate School system in Ontario is not truly Catholic. Most of the schools (I'd wager at least 50%) are fitted with teachers who have very secular left-wing views on issues of economics, the military, sexuality, law etc. Look at the positions of the Catholic teachers union; especially in Toronto. True Catholicism is neither left nor right. This left-wing ideological infiltration will not be immediately present in other faith based schools. That's why progressives are threatened.

But how do I know what is being taught in faith based schools? Shouldn't I be worried about extremist factions such as in Islam?

No, it should make you feel better. They will have to conform to provincial standards. Again, these schools already exist. If extremists are now in the system, it is better to have these schools open to inspection. But let's not just pick on what is a very small number in Islam, do you not think left wing extremists exist in the public school system supporting radical causes?

Next, Part 3.


Do you support John Tory's faith based education proposal:

Yes. Even though it is a flawed system, I do not think he is sincere and he has promoted it improperly.

But isn't that segregationalist?

Of course not. The architects of Dalton McGuinty's 07 campaign have obviously told him to use that word so that images of KKK members in the rural American Democratic South of the mid 20th Century will come to mind. In fact, comparing working class Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc, who just want their children to have a faith based education to the white segregationists of the South is racist and very small minded. This is pure strategy and is beginning to backfire.

But won't it separate and further divide Ontarians?

No. These schools already exist. It just means the province is respecting the decision of a parent to send their child to one. No one would be forced to go to them, just as they are not forced now. What we need to ask is why so many desire to leave the public system.

Who gets to decide what schools get funding?

The schools would have to meet a curriculum that is set by the province, just as the Separate School Board does.

But what about schools run by Wiccans and Scientologists? That sounds scary. Aren't you asking for a Charter Challenge here?

That has not happened anywhere else. The schools would have to meet provincial criteria. If our courts are so ill-guided that they would give funding to a Wiccan school or Scientology school, then we have much bigger concerns than the faith based system.

But didn't the Liberals used to be for faith based schools?

Not officially, but on an ideological level in the past, both Dalton McGuinty and the current education minister said they would be open to talking about it. Many ideological liberals, leftists or progressives used to be for it also.

Why the switch?

This is where culture and ideology come into play. Canada has made a huge cultural shift in the past decade. When ideological liberals percieved Canada and Ontario to be conservative and Christian/Catholic, they desired a faith based funding system as a way of eroding that culture for the purpose of diversity and multiculturalism. Now that they see Ontario is stridently secular with neo-feminist social values, they see religious based schools as a threat.

Next, Part 2.

Monday, August 27, 2007


If there is even a small grain of truth to this story then it is one of the most horrific and tragic news stories I have ever read.

"Some AIDS victims are being buried alive in Papua New Guinea by relatives who cannot look after them and fear becoming infected themselves, a health worker said Monday.

Margaret Marabe, who spent five months carrying out an AIDS awareness campaign in the remote Southern Highlands of the South Pacific nation, said she had seen five people buried while still breathing.

One was calling out "Mama, Mama" as the soil was shoveled over his head, said Marabe, who works for a volunteer organisation called Igat Hope, Pidgin English for I've Got Hope."

I have written before that I had a gay brother, who died from AIDS in January 1993. I am sure he is in a much better place right now.

This story quite simply breaks my heart because it is rooted in ignorance and fear.

Saturday, August 25, 2007


I love movies. I went to film school. But I do not always have time to review films. So today, I will let a guest critic present a review of Mr. Bean's Holiday.

My guest critic is Andre Bedouin. He has a PHD in Film and Anthropological studies. In his spare time, Andre is dedicated to making the world a better place through academia and tolerance.

Take it away Andre!

Mr. Bean's Holiday, (Universal Pictures) serves as a graphic example of British Colonization and by association, a propagandistic film that creates one dimensional support for American Imperialism.

Mr. Bean, a displaced British occupier on vacation in France during the war in Iraq, clearly represents the colonizing by the British of culture it sees as subservient to it. When he creates havoc at Cannes, it is a symbol of colonial Britain (and by association Imperialist America) taking over the culture and appropriating it to his/its own end. The pacified, neutered patrons even look on at the befuddled Bean/Bush/Blair in 'shock and awe'. Bean's ambivalence to the destruction he wreaks is as though he is saying to France/Iraq "Bring it on".

That the viewer is asked to enjoy these 'antics', makes one complacent in maintaining the anti-Gramscian cultural hegemony of the state in a capitalist society. This is offensive to the post-modern viewer.

The film is also homophobic and homoerotic at the same time. Mr. Bean, with his long lean legs and lithe dancers body, is clearly intended as a latent homosexual. Time and again he is either awkward around womyn or does not acknowledge them at all. His legs are his phallic symbol. Much like the penis or -cockette- they represent however, he is all erection with no release.

This subtext makes it a prime discourse on sexual repression in post-colonial Western Judeo-Christian society. Taking Foucault into account, Mr. Bean represents the dichotomy of the hypersexualized homoerotic fantasy. He is also the repressed 'other' that will not allow itself expression in a homophobic patriarchal Western culture. Had this film been made in a sexually free matriarchal culture such as Syria, Iran or pre-colonized Iraq, this text would be more open and nurtured.

Hence, Mr. Bean's Holiday resurrects a typical jingoistic expression of the dead, white man's culture. A patriarchal merging of both a capitalist meta-structure and the dichotomy of the 'other' that it represses through its own inherent contradictions.

1/2 star for the oppressive return of Mr. Bean. The half star is because I could drink at the screening. It is rated G but should be an R so as to not influence children or the aged.

Thanks, again Andre!

Friday, August 24, 2007


Some bloggers have mentioned an abortion protest that occurred in Toronto yesterday. Others have taken issue with it.

I just wanted to clarify something about this issue so that anyone who wants to discuss it will be informed.

There are no laws regarding abortion in Canada at this time in our history. None. We are the only country in the civilized world to not address this issue in any way.

Theoretically, if you can find a doctor who will perform it, you can kill your child up until the moment it is born in Canada. Period. For any reason. There is no grey area about this in Canadian law because there is no Canadian law.

While most doctors might not perform the procedure, at this point in Canada's history there are no laws restricting an abortion for any reason.

That is one of the reasons why abortion is a multimillion dollar industry in Canada and private clinics are allowed. Abortion doctors do not live in Parkdale.

You can abort your child for any reason from rape and incest, to gender selection, birth control reasons or your baby has Down's Syndrome.

There are no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, these facts must be acknowledged.

This is not a pro-life or pro-choice post but a post about facts. I do not think all people who are pro-choice are evil and I do not think all people who are pro-life are saints. But I do think we need to, as a country address the facts of this issue, because without the facts, how can you find the truth.

Monday, August 20, 2007


The new BBC show Casualty has changed its plans to open its season with the depiction of an Islamic terrorist bombing.

Under pressure, they will now say the bombing is the work of animal rights extremists.

I remember after 24 became a hit, the BBC came up with its version called Spooks, which was renamed MI:5 for the North American audience so as to not offend politically correct sensibilities. We rented those DVD's a few months back and the first episiode of that series was about a series of bombings created by pro-life evangelicals.

A few years ago, I was able to get a screenplay I wrote on the subject of terrorism and the Irish Republican Army to the BBC and got very positive feedback on it. Then this happened, and I received a polite letter saying the screenplay was well very written and researched but the subject matter was too sensitive at this time.

After a while, not being able to deal with certain subjects is just poor story writing and indicative of a culture that does not want to deal with truth on any level.

Which is what political correctness is really about, anyway.


5. Too many left-wing parties (Greens, NDP) that will bleed to the Liberals at the last minute

4. Too many centrist voters still fear what they perceive to be 'Mike Harris' elements in the Ontario PC party. It is not true, but it matters.

3. Toronto's demographic has changed in the past 10 years to drift further left. Even centrist candidates are too far right for Toronto at this time in its history. I focus on Toronto because Toronto counts for a lot.

2. John Tory, while a nice man, has not done nearly enough to distinguish himself as an even center-right politician. Other than his religious school funding proposition, what of significance has he done to appeal to his base? On most other occasions he has done everything he can to show he actually disagrees vehemently with his base. Problem is, it leaves grassroots PC's unmotivated to vote for him and left-wing Ontarians will not vote for him anyway. Not a way to win an election.

1.Campaign is based on public anger against Dalton McGuinty and his promise breaking, not based on wanting to vote for Tory. And getting an Ontarian angry against a Liberal is pretty much harder to do than getting an NDP'r angry against Hamas.

I have said before, John Tory is a good man. I have met him and I like him. I think he would have made a great centrist mayor for Toronto. But sadly, he does not seem to have the fire in the belly. He is essentially a wealthy businessman who wants something else to do in the autumn of his life. He does a lot of good on his own and much charity work. But he is not really a political animal. That is something different. He is trying to win based on just being a nice guy without really distinguishing himself.

The fact that I, and everyone knows what I think about Dalton McGuinty, can't even get motivated to really want Tory to win says something.

Personally I think McGuinty will get back with possibly even another majority. Being a shite politician doesn't matter to many Ontarians. It's the label that counts. They'd rather gargle the acidic mouthwash of the Liberal Brand then try a new minty fresh brand labelled Progressive Conservative.

It's sad, but I wouldn't even rule out Tory losing against Wynne. I know many will say it is unlikely but...

...ultimately, I just think John Tory is an ideological liberal who is a PC because that is where most of his business contacts reside. That doesn't make him a bad man...just an undistinguished gentleman.

Thursday, August 16, 2007


Here is a well written article on the unfortunate rumour that has taken place amongst many muscians that Elvis Presley was a racist.

Sadly, old left-wing stereotypes and cliches die hard, especially in the arts.

At least this is a start.


Good for them.

I guess if I could say I knew a lot of unintelligent Mennonites and a lot of brilliant graduates of the public school system I would have an issue with this, but I can't so I won't.

I also suspect the school system will be a key issue in the fall Ontario elections.

This is probably the issue that will also make me vote for John Tory with at least some sense of not selling out.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


I've been wanting to write about the polygamy issue for some time so I think I'll try now. Rather than do it as an essay though, I'll try to address the issue as a form of Q & A.

What does polygamy have to do with SSM? We were told they are not connected and one would not lead to the other.

You were lied to or mislead. Most politicians like Paul Martin knew the two were linked, which is why the Martha Bailey report was commissioned among others. The academic and legal argument for SSM marriage was that the institution of marriage had nothing to do with children and therefore requiring gender differences discriminated against homosexuals. If you believe this, that marriage is only about property rights and tax laws between consenting adults, then why should it not be opened to more than one person? That is why this issue is coming to the forefront now.

I know and understand that not every heterosexual couple has children, but it is what society has always aspired to in the institution. If you take away that aspiration, and it only becomes about the economics, then why shouldn't 3, 4 or more people be allowed to marry? Similarly why shouldn't groups of persons who do not have sex be allowed to marry also?

But isn't the polygamy issue in BC about how far freedom of religion can go?

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of religion. Think about it, does one - have - to have a religion to be in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship. I have one friend who is in such a relationship and she is not religious at all. This is merely a smokescreen so that the public will not relate it to SSM. This case happens to involve religion, but that is not a necessary requirment for wanting to be in a polygamous relationship. Does one have to have a religion to want a three way or more sexual relationship?

But what of the issue of abuse against women and children that are being levelled?

These have never been proven and we must define abuse. When the average person or police officer looks for abuse they mean sexual molestation, forcible confinement, physical abuse, beatings etc. When many feminist or academic groups look for abuse in this situation they mean the actual polygamous marriage itself. In academic feminist parlance, abuse refers to ideology or anything partriarchal.

Here is an excerpt from the Vancouver Sun, 2003.

In addition, B.C.-based Jancis Andrews, on behalf of the Canadian Federation of University Women, is aggressively lobbying Premier Gordon Campbell to stop funding the Bountiful school and clamp down on polygamy, which is illegal in Canada. ...

She alleges children are taught many unconscionable things at the school, including that blacks are inferior, females must not consider careers and that underage girls must marry and have sex with whomever the patriarch decrees.

Now if these things are being taught, that is horrible...but waitaminute; Some of these accusations are typical left-wing allegations against conservatives and supporters of Stephen Harper, John Tory and George Bush too.

Remember, the CFUW aside, any marriage that recognizes gender differences is seen as abuse by many people with a modern feminist academic world view.

Many of them believe traditional marriage is a form of slavery for women because it is a patriarchal institution that by definition oppresses women like slavery did to people of black or African ancestry. This is the type of abuse they are looking for and why the police are having a hard time proving it. Of course they can't say that in public or they would expose themselves for what they are.

Here are some prominent academic feminist quotes on the subject:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break—up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. " Linda Gordon

Sexism is NOT the fault of women — kill your fathers, not your mothers. Robin Morgan

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." Andrea Dworkin

Also look at this site,, which is signed by many prominant members of academia and the arts including Gloria Steinem and Dan Brown. This issue has always been far more complex then we have been allowed to discuss.

What about the Martha Bailey report that the Liberal Party of Canada commissioned? Isn't she for polygamous marriage?

Bailey is a feminist professor from Queen's University. As a former attendee I can tell you it has the most pre-eminent feminist law school in Canada that specializes in radical feminist thought. Bailey is from this radical train of thought that believes by legalizing polygamy we will destroy the institution itself. The logic is; by making every relationship marriage - ultimately nothing is marriage and the institution dies. Stanley Kurtz in the National Review dissects her argument here.

These people care nothing about the well being of women or children. They care about their own extremist ideology which sadly, is now the mainstream in our culture.

Is this why there is ideological confusion on the issue?

Yes. If you really believe the 'equality' under the charter argument for SSM there is no logical reason to be opposed to polygamy. But they were never straight with you as to what that 'equality' argument really entailed or what assumptions about marriage they held. That is why we are at the crossroads and people in both camps do not know which way they should turn, or what to believe.

In many ways, the gay community were just used as pawns in this game by people who had a much larger agenda. I understand why many gay people said they wanted SSM based on what they were told. But it also says something that as of June of this year, only one marriage license was issued to a Canadian same-sex couple in Toronto. Funny for something we were told was so revolutionary, desired and in demand. Just. One.

What about Muslims? Are there not various sects of Islam that practice polygamy?

Polygamy is not the norm in Islam, but there are many sects that practice it. There is also much more history in favour of polygamy than SSM marriage. To those feminists that will say all polygamous relationships are abuse, will they say the same thing if Muslims speak up? Will this not leave them open to charges of racism? That is one of the many reasons why this is such a hot topic for politicians to persue.

But waitaminute, didn't the highest court in Ontario already rule that a boy could have two lesbian mothers and a father? What's the difference between that and polygamy?

Exactly. Once you eliminate the man-woman traditional family as the norm to aspire to, the difference becomes only ideological and academic. Virtually every credible study that has been done on this subject confirms that children are best reared in a one mother-one father enviroment which is natural law. Obviously there are cases where good children are raised by good parents who are single or alone for whatever reason. They should be loved and treated with compassion. But that is not what society should aspire to.

Many doctors who understand this, such as those who formed the American College of Pediatricians have been smeared or lied about much like those who question man made global warming.

Others, such as Margaret Somerville, who is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University are harder to discredit. Her views on gender, child rearing and marriage are complex and rooted in science and that is why the small minded profs at Ryerson had an issue with her a little over a year ago. She is world renowned.

Where will this issue land?

Hard to tell. Unlike SSM this one breaks down in more choppy demographics. People on both the left and right are opposed or for it for various reasons. I am opposed to polygamy and contrary to what supporters of SSM want you to believe, that is why we are dealing with this now. With the laws already changed, my feeling is it should be hard to stop. But at the end of the day, I will bet on the feminist contingent in Canada to win out and the media focussing on the 'evil Christian' element at this point. At any rate, children and science lose.

So those are where my thoughts are on this subject. I welcome all intelligent discourse.


We've all read about the fatal panhandling that occurred in Toronto last week and ended in the death of Ross Hammond last Saturday night.

Of course we also know that the general response of Toronto city council is to show very little compassion or respect to the victims and their families and to issue statements about having compassion for the homeless and the poor.

I'll just say a few things.

I have been on welfare once for almost a year.

I have had to go with my family at Christmas-time to a food bank as a teenager, after my father died to make sure we at least had peanut butter and bread to eat for the holiday season.

Being poor does not make one commit crime. This is essentially what Toronto city council members are saying when they talk of blaming poverty for crime.

Being poor does not make one a criminal. Being a criminal makes one a criminal.

Now obviously, the world is a complex place and one must always try to show compassion to those who are homeless. Crime can occur out of situations of desperation and need and we should always try to understand why someone might do something like this. But there is an old saying that one must first know the rules before one can break them, and Toronto is a city which threw out the rule book years ago.

With a myopic view based on well-to-do, white, academic neo-Marxist oppression theory that seeks to control, not empower the poor, Toronto will make any excuse to having poor because that is how well-to-do, white, neo-Marxist politicians like David Miller, Howard Moscoe or Michael Bryant stay in power.

Have they consoled the family? Have they offered any compassion at all? My wife and I were on Queen Street West just last week and things like this get one thinking. We were also accosted a few years ago by a gang member at Yonge and St. Clair.

Toronto is quickly becoming one of the most extreme cities in North America for its ideology. Torontonians love to cry how their city is still safe relatively speaking; and relatively speaking it is. But the crime that is occurring is deadly and random and both visitors and Torontonians alike need to know that if you are the victim of a crime at the hand of the homeless or vicious Jamaican gangs or drug dealers, The City of Toronto will have no pity, mercy or compassion on you or your family.

Quite the opposite.

The left-wing City of Toronto will show all of its pity, mercy and compassion to those that did you or your family wrong or worse.