Mid-Week Post

Your middle-of-the-week saunter into fall ... 🍂

 

Let me state clearly - there is no such thing as a Palestinian state. There are no borders, no laws, no constitution, no tax collection services, no infrastructure built with said taxes, nothing. There is only a land-mass squatted on by people who rape and murder women and children, a figment of the liberal West's feverish imagination:

Prime Minister Mark Carney defended on Tuesday his government’s decision to recognize the State of Palestine despite fierce criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump, Republican lawmakers and the Conservative opposition in Ottawa.

(Sidebar: as much as the bribed press would prefer to frame this as a battle of wills between Carney and Trump, it really is a statement of what both leaders represent. Carney represents himself as Canadians are largely indifferent to things that happen outside of Canada and will only embrace Jew-haters if told, and Trump sees the UN as the enabler of the worst sorts of tyrannies.)

Earlier in the day, Trump accused allied nations — which include Canada — of encouraging “continued conflict” in the Middle East by seemingly rewarding terrorist group Hamas.

 

(Sidebar: not "seemingly". It does.) 

** 

Hamas performed a public execution on a Gaza City street on Sunday night. Three men in blindfolds, who had been accused of collaborating with Israel, were lowered to their knees in front of hundreds of onlookers. While members of the crowd cheered, jeered and took videos on their phones, the men were shot at point-blank range.

Just hours earlier, a dispatch had come from Ottawa: Canada was officially recognizing a Palestinian state.

The Palestine that Canada now recognizes bears no resemblance to the Palestinian territory that actually exists on the ground.

A statement released by Prime Minister Mark Carney said that Canada is “recognizing the State of Palestine, led by the Palestinian Authority,” though the reality is that the PA currently has no authority beyond the West Bank.

** 

Canada has promised to exceed $400 million in funds to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including a new investment of $47 million, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Tuesday. The total amount also includes a new $47 million investment in the judicial systems, government structures, economic resilience, and democratization efforts of the territories.

 

(Sidebar: the joke's on you. We don't have that kind of money.) 

 

Vaguely related:

Such handbooks are supposed to include calendars and other useful information for students. But according to Zorchinsky, this year’s agenda doesn’t look like anything that should be handed out at a Canadian university.

In a social media video, Zorchinsky describes the handbook as “Pro-Hamas and anti-western,” explaining that it doesn’t contain Canadian flags, only Palestinian ones, and that the calendar does not feature “any Canadian or religious holidays whatsoever,” not even Christmas. It does, however, mention the Palestinians’ “Nakba Day.”

 

Why, that sounds like a challenge to me: 

 

Let's bombard Concordia with CHRISTMAS! 

 

 

The cabinet agrees to further destroy Canada's economy:

The Commons yesterday by a 192 to 140 vote endorsed cabinet’s oil and gas emissions cap. The regulations not yet in force would cost at least $3.4 billion and some 3,400 energy jobs, according to the Department of Environment: “Here is where we disagree.” 

 

Also:

The Department of Industry billed taxpayers nearly a third of a million to host a two-day conference of green technology companies seeking federal subsidies, records show. “Now is the time for ambitious climate action,” then-Minister François-Philippe Champagne said at the time. 

 

 

Can Carney afford to keep someone this stupid?:

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree yesterday launched cabinet’s long-delayed buy-back of “assault style” firearms under a national program he privately dismissed as a political ploy to save 44 Liberal seats in Québec. Opposition MPs demanded his resignation: “Why did you say it was about Québec?” 

 

 

That's quite a distance:

Cabinet aides in internal emails schemed to “limit the damage” from public disclosures that Canadian taxpayers financed Chinese shipyard jobs, records show. “Distance ourselves from this as much as possible,” wrote one aide as then-Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland denied personal knowledge of the $1 billion BC Ferries deal: “It is our attempt to make the best of the worst.” 

 

 

Canada the cruel:

When Perry MacDonald heard that Canadian author Robert Munsch had requested Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) after his diagnoses with dementia and Parkinson’s disease, it touched a nerve.

Munsch recently explained to the New York Times that, under Canadian law, recipients of MAID must be able to actively consent on the day of their death. “I have to pick the moment when I can still ask for it,” he said. If he waited too long, he added, talking to his wife, “you’re stuck with me being a lump.”

Government regulations are clear: “The person must be given an opportunity to withdraw consent and must expressly confirm their consent immediately before receiving MAID.”

MacDonald is familiar with watching dementia take a loved one. Three months ago, his brother died after living with the disease for almost two decades.

 

Also:

Ontarians without a primary care practitioner may soon be relieved to connect with one in their community.

This week, the provincial government launched a call for proposals to create and expand approximately 75 primary care teams with the aim of connecting 500,000 more residents with primary care.

It’s an “over $250 million investment,” the Ontario government announced on Monday.

It’s also part of the government’s $2.1 billion primary care action plan to connect everyone in province to convenient primary care by 2029. The entire campaign stems from the Primary Care Act passed in May.

 

But let's not address the real reason why there are no medical professionals remaining in Canada or the failed healthcare scheme. 

 

 

The legal system:

The Crown prosecutor handling the case of a 25-year-old half-Cree man who pleaded guilty to repeatedly raping a 12-year-old girl in Calgary — among many other vile things — believed 12 to 15 years would make a fair sentence; 10, if you count his mitigating factors. But the judge arrived at merely eight. Why? Because the offender was Indigenous.

Known only as RJM, the offender met the girl online and quickly escalated it into a real-world relationship that would span from May to September 2023. It was abusive. He pulled a knife on her and threatened to kill her; he punched her in the face; he dragged her by the hair; he hit her with a metal pole; he drove her out to the country and left her by the side of the road to walk back (he eventually returned to pick her up); he threatened to kill her mom and her cat; he threatened to burn her mother’s house down (backed by a video of himself holding a blowtorch outside the home); he was likely the one to bomb her mom’s car.

And then there was the sexual abuse. Their age difference made any sexual activity illegal, but RJM went as far as holding her down and forcing himself upon her. And while RJM initially believed the girl to be 16, he did not end the relationship when he learned her age (by that time, she was 13).

Indeed, her true age seemed to arouse him: he was angry that he could be labelled a pedophile, but he doubled down anyway, saying that he “might as well earn these potential life changing charges.” He told her he wanted to “stretch” her, “breed” her, ejaculate inside her every day until she turned 16, and film himself raping her.

He was arrested by police in September 2023 after a half-hour chase that reached speeds of 140 km/h and caused at least $10,000 in property damage. When he was caught, officers found bomb-making and grave-digging instructions in his backpack, and various weapons in his car. From jail, he attempted to contact the girl numerous times and, when he succeeded, pressured and threatened her to not co-operate with the investigation.

So, aside from the rape, RJM committed a slew of crimes that, to most regular people, would demonstrate his incompatibility with society. But on his side was his ethnicity, and Canada’s nearly 30-year-old practice of giving racial discounts for Indigenous heritage

It all started in 1996 when the Liberal Parliament — under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien — added a new line to the Criminal Code’s sentencing provisions: Section 718.2(e). This required that judges consider “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.”

That alone was not necessarily a racial discount. You can read that provision in a way that isn’t offensive to the notion of individual equality; one interpretation might be that it simply allows judges to use, for very minor cases like first-time vandalism by a 19-year-old, Indigenous-related diversion programs in lieu of a criminal sentence. Diversion programs as an alternative to criminal sentencing aren’t abnormal at all — indeed, we use them all the time for low-level, first-time crime, so explicitly allowing Indigenous variations wouldn’t be radical.

But in 1999, the provision’s racial discount nature was sealed with a Supreme Court interpretation. The court, in the case of R. v. Gladue, required that all judges in Canada take into account every Indigenous person’s “systemic and background factors” in sentencing. It declared that Chrétien’s Criminal Code amendment was inherently aimed at giving racial balance to Canada’s prison population, and that there was a “judicial duty” to give this “real force.”

“The drastic overrepresentation of aboriginal peoples within both the Canadian prison population and the criminal justice system reveals a sad and pressing social problem,” wrote the court. “It is reasonable to assume that Parliament, in singling out aboriginal offenders for distinct sentencing treatment in s. 718.2(e), intended to attempt to redress this social problem to some degree.

“The provision may properly be seen as Parliament’s direction to members of the judiciary to inquire into the causes of the problem and to endeavour to remedy it, to the extent that a remedy is possible through the sentencing process.”

While Chrétien’s justice minister had once expressed to a parliamentary committee that he was saddened by the proportionately large size of the Indigenous prison population and hoped the bill would encourage courts to look for alternatives to jail, the written law introduced no actual demographic duty in the sentencing process. That, the Supreme Court simply made up.

From there on out, the public became generally aware that Indigenous people were treated more leniently in sentencing than everyone else. So, in the 2012 case of R. v. Ipeelee, the Supreme Court expanded the regime and attempted to convince everyone that it’s not a racial discount — it’s just a discount that applies to all people of a certain race. I remain unconvinced.