The nationwide manhunt for two suspected murderers has gripped Canadians.
And while everyone is waiting to see how events will be brought to a conclusion, there are also questions to be asked about what will happen if they are captured alive, and found guilty.
In that scenario, Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for sheltering, feeding, entertaining, clothing, and caring for those individuals in prison, just as taxpayers are on the hook for the worst of the worst within the “justice” system.
Meanwhile, many Canadian Veterans are homeless, many Canadian seniors are struggling in poverty, many Indigenous communities don’t have clean drinking water (while prisons have clean drinking water), and the hypocrisies go on and on.
Basically, we live in a country where some of the most vicious and vile killers and criminals get taken care of at taxpayer expense, while people who served our nation, people who followed the law, and people who seek a good standard of living are abandoned.
That is unacceptable.
The question then is what to do about it.
First, we need to make sure our own innocent citizens are taken care of. That means slashing foreign aid, and redirecting those billions of dollars towards Canadian Citizens in need.
Second, we need to bring back the death penalty for the worst of the worst, in cases where guilt is obvious and undeniable.
It’s simply outrageous that horrific killers can get a lifetime of taxpayer-funded service, which ends up being incredibly costly.
Additionally, the lack of the death penalty, combined with the pathetically weak laws that even give people like Mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonette the chance to apply for parole (after 40 years) revictimizes the families of those who were killed. That’s because when parole hearings take place, family members often have to go and argue against someone getting released, forcing them to deal with the brutal loss of their family member all over again.
So, instead of revictimizing families of those who are murdered, instead of spending hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dollars on caring for despicable killers, we should instead bring back the death penalty.
Properly applied, the death penalty sends a clear message that those who brutally take the lives of innocent people will lose their lives in return. And it sends the message that we prioritize the rights of victims of crime and the families of victims of crime ahead of killers.
Canada’s justice system has been anti-victim and weak for far too long. It’s time to bring back the death penalty.
Thousands of gun rights activist have traveled from across the United States to gather today in Richmond, Virginia, to protest against gun-control laws being advanced by the commonwealth’s new Democratic majority in the General Assembly. Following reports of “threats” and potential “violence,” VA Governor Ralph Northam (D) ordered a state of emergency and banned guns from Capitol Square—but gun rights activists have not been deterred by the order to protest Northam’s infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
As the protest in the commonwealth’s capitol begins in earnest, liberal journalists and public figures have taken to smearing its attendees. Pam Keith, a former Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida condemned the 2nd Amendment marchers, referring to them as “a bunch of incel ammosexuals.” She misrepresented the gathering, which has remained peaceful since it began earlier this morning, as “threatening goon squads.”
A day ahead of the protest, NBC News reporter Ben Collins falsely described the then-upcoming march as a “white nationalist rally in Virginia.” He wrote: “Verify information before you send it out tomorrow, even if it’s a very sensational rumor you heard from a cop. Don’t become a hero in neo-Nazi propaganda circles with made-up stuff.”
Perhaps Collins should consider taking his own advice next time. Collins later deleted the tweet, but doubled down on referring to the protesters as “white nationalists.” The reporter justified it by calling it a white nationalist rally due to white nationalist organizations’ alleged plans to attend the Lobby Day protest.
Gabe Gutierrez, an NBC News correspondent, openly lied about the protesters’ chants. In a clip shared by Gutierrez, protesters can be heard reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Gutierrez wrote instead that they were chanting “we will not comply”—a phrase unheard anywhere in the clip.
Democracy doesn’t simply die in darkness—it dies when journalists lie about the things they write about.
Fifty percent of Canada’s population is on the verge of insolvency, a recent survey has found.
According to the latest MNP Consumer Debt Index published today, 50 percent of survey respondents answered that they were within $200 of being unable to pay their bills. Forty-nine percent of respondents also said that they didn’t have full confidence “in their ability to cover expenses without going deeper in debt.”
“Our findings may point to a shift among some Canadians from debt apathy to debt hopelessness. Feelings of hopelessness can make people feel like giving up on ever paying down their debt or, worse, ignoring the debt as it piles up higher,” said MNP President Grant Bazian.
Statistics Canada has previously released similar data which also paints a grim picture for Canadians. According to their most recent figures, the seasonally-adjusted credit market debt to disposable income ratio has continued to climb, now to 171.84—this would mean that for every dollar of disposable income, Canadians carry $1.72 of debt.
The Bank of Canada is set to release its next interest rate figure on Wednesday.
A whole month has now passed since Andrew Scheer resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, and now, the race to replace him is well underway. Some candidates, like Peter MacKay, foresaw the untenability of Scheer’s position, and reportedly began to organize their bid long before the first vote of the 2019 election had been counted.
Other candidates, like Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre, have been more cautious—discreetly organizing a team that can defeat both their blue-blooded colleagues in June, and then a wobbly Justin Trudeau in the next election.
As Peter MacKay said after the disappointment of the last election, the Tories’ failure to beat Trudeau was “like having a breakaway on an open net and missing.” This most Canadian of analogies should remain pungent during the leadership contest: the next election should beckon a blue-wave across the country. If the Conservative Party again fails to win the keys to the PMO then one is perfectly within their right to expand upon MacKay’s analogy: It would be like failing to invade Poland; or, more sportingly, like losing a boxing match with an amputee. To put it simply, it is more likely than not that the victor of this leadership election will become the next prime minister of Canada.
Due to the sheer significance of this leadership contest, The Post Millennial has composed a handy guide. Here’s who is likely to compete in the leadership election and how they plan to win it.
MacKay has not had the easiest start to the leadership contest. After tersely declaring his bid on Twitter, the long-standing Tory MP, Scott Reid, hit back, throwing the former Harper minister’s loyalty into question. Nevertheless, MacKay is a respected figure in Canada’s Conservative movement. Through his role as the leader of the Canadian Alliance, MacKay was vital to the formation of the modern Conservative Party.
MacKay served in numerous cabinet positions throughout the Harper era and remains a favourite in the leadership contest. Despite the shaky start, polls have made it clear that the Nova Scotian is in a top position to win.
Like MacKay, O’Toole is another party grandee who commands a great deal of respect from within the caucus. O’Toole, rather exotically these days, served in the military. If he is elected, he would be the first Conservative leader in over 60 years with military experience.
Most recently, O’Toole has served as the Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs. O’Toole is not new to leadership contests, finishing third in the 2017 leadership election behind Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer.
I had the opportunity to meet Poilievre at a fundraiser. Immediately, he stood out as an effective speaker and as someone who could pose a serious challenge to the other candidates.
Poilievre is a career politician who, through his role as Scheer’s attack dog, has managed to garner wide support amongst the Conservative base. Poilievre has recruited the admired John Baird and the formidable Jenni Byrne, who is an accomplished operative who ran Harper’s 2015 campaign.
There are, of course, other candidates who are spending their time plotting for the leadership. However, for the sake of longevity, and the fact that Guzzo hasn’t received much media coverage, it seems only fair to discuss the Dragon’s Den star.
When The Post Millennial spoke to Guzzo a few weeks ago, he seemed uncertain whether he would throw his hat in the ring—stating that if the Quebec-based Jean Charest didn’t run, then he would be 75 percent sure that he would indeed run. Now, with the recent reports that Charest isn’t likely going to run, Guzzo’s ambition has solidified, telling me,”Yes. If [Charest] doesn’t run, I’ll run.”
Despite attempts to shrug off the comparison, Guzzo’s strategy has similarities to that of Kevin O’Leary’s leadership attempt in 2017. The most overt difference, however, is that Guzzo is Quebec-oriented. With the right-wing CAQ romping to victory in the 2018 provincial election, perhaps Guzzo is on to something. La Belle province is rich with seats, and if the Conservatives can persuade the fickle Quebecois, then Trudeau’s future as PM is in grave danger.
Actor Laurence Fox says that “the wokist is a fundamentally racist bunch.” On BBC’s Question Time, he said that the backlash against Meghan Markle was not racist, and called a woman of colour racist for suggesting that his identity means he can’t discern racism.
“The problem we’ve got with this is that Meghan has agreed to be Harry’s wife,” a woman spoke up from the audience, “and the press has torn her to pieces, and let’s be really clear about what this is, let’s call it by its name: it’s racism.”
He decried her view, saying “It’s not racism, we’re the most tolerant lovely country in Europe.”
“Says a white privileged man,” she shot back.
“It’s so easy to throw the charge of racism at everybody,” Fox replied, “and it’s really starting to get boring.”
“What worries me about your comment,” she said, “is you’re a white privileged male.” A round of audience boos rose up.
Fox was clearly annoyed by her comment. “I can’t help what I am, I was born like this,” he said, “it’s an immutable characteristic, so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist. You’re being racist.”
For this, he was skewered in the press and received death threats. Even after “Equity’s minority ethnic members committee… called on fellow actors to ‘unequivocally denounce’ Laurence Fox for comments he made during an appearance on BBC1’s Question Time,” author Shappi Khorsandi spoke against that denunciation.
And Fox wouldn’t back down. Instead, he took to the airwaves with Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio’s Breakfast Show this morning to expand upon his views.
It was in talking with Hartley-Brewer that he said “I think there’s racism everywhere but I don’t think we’re a systemically racist country. I don’t see a lot of racism, but then I’m a straight white male.” He went on to say that “identity politics is fundamentally racist as well,” because “it’s about silencing opinion,” and “seeing colour everywhere.”
Fox gave voice to what many people have been thinking, that the language of racism and accusations of bias have jumped the shark. Racism had been a charge that could only be levelled by minority racial groups against dominant racial groups. It was a scourge that needed to be rooted out at the highest levels of power to prevent systemic inequity. This project was undertaken by Civil Rights activists, and that work has continued in all of us. As Fox notes, there is still racism.
But the way to fix that racism is not by categorizing everyone into their own little identity boxes and determining what they are allowed to say or think based on the rights and privileges of that identity. The thing to do is to treat everyone like a human being, capable of having their own thoughts and ideas. People must look for the best in one another, not the worst, and not seek out every opportunity to be offended.
Calling someone a privileged white male, said Fox, is a way of “silencing opinion,” saying “you’re not allowed an opinion, mate, you’re white.” Fox has had enough of it, as have so many people.
There are no identity factors that make someone a bad person. Identity factors, such as race, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation should not have value judgements associated with them. For one hot minute, we used to know this. The goal was to look at each other and not parse up individuals into their requisite labels, to not use a person’s external characteristics to determine the worth of their ideas or their rights under the law.
That all turned around with concepts like “valuing differences,” wherein we were supposed to look at the ways in which we were different first, dissect and acknowledge those, before seeking for the ways in which we were the same. How much better it is to find kinship with one another first, before sorting all the ways in which we are different.
Fox’s perspective on racism and identity will most likely continue to be discredited because his identity factors are deemed more essential than his actual perspective. His views are taken with large grains of white cis het male privileged salt. But it’s time to start realizing that the brilliant Civil Rights movement, which told us not to judge someone on the basis of their physical characteristics, has been co-opted by haters who would have us do that very same thing. It doesn’t matter who is being boxed by immutable identity factors and judged by them, it matters that it’s being done at all, and it must stop.