I own a small aesthetics clinic in downtown Toronto, teach public speaking professionally, ran as a candidate for the People’s Party of Canada last election, and have contributed to the [em]Toronto Sun[/em], [em]The Post Millennial[/em], and [em]National Newswatch[/em], among other news outlets.
One of the most important cases on Canadian court dockets today is currently awaiting a ruling and is likely to drop soon.
Being suffused with woke politics, however, and Canadian media being almost completely captured by woke 20-somethings, it has received next to zero attention in the press.
How federal grant officers missed the now-infamous anti-Semitic tweets from the now-former grantee Laith Marouf, has been the question for many concerned Jews since the story broke a few months back.
Members of the Conservative opposition are also taking note, and recently promised a motion reprimanding the grant’s ultimate overseer, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez. As Michael Goldberg, the man who uncovered the tweets, asked when the news finally broke, where was the due diligence on the part of Heritage’s “anti-hate” grants officers? How could this have slipped through the grantee-vetting process?
The National Post dropped a bombshell recently when it reported on an extreme left-wing organization receiving $270,000 in federal funds to teach school kids that Canada's Red Ensign flag is a symbol of racial hatred—that is, the flag Canada flew under during World War II when it fought the Nazis. This taxpayer-funded "educational toolkit", authored by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), also equates supporting a US-Mexico border fence with a Nazi salute and encourages students to tell on each other for promoting ‘hateful ideas.'
Voter-surveys show top issues this election being the post-COVID economy, housing affordability, and the environment. These are big areas of concern, it's true. But these surveys, commonly presented as a pre-set list to voters by pollsters and media groups, are missing an issue that is absolutely fundamental to our free, open, and democratic society: the freedom of political expression. This can't be lost on candidates and those critical of Trudeau's recently-tabled anti-"hate speech" bill—which, if the parliamentary vote on his bill to regulate social media is any indicator, means the whole Conservative Party and the heroic Jody Wilson-Raybould—and the issue has to be dragged into every stump-speech, debate, and election discussion before polls close on September 20.
Recently, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh pushed out an online petition over Twitter demanding that Prime Minister Trudeau declare Proud Boys Canada a 'white supremacist terrorist' organization. The call came immediately after US Proud Boy members were apparently found involved in the Capitol Building melee that's since led to House Democrats impeaching President Trump a second time.
Although it is CSIS and Public Safety Canada, not NDP Twitter-followers, which decide who is and isn't a threat to our national security, Singh's bit of Two Minutes Hate did exactly what was intended: it pushed Public Safety Minister Bill Blair last week to indeed officially label the group a "terrorist organization", putting them in the same camp as ISIS in the process.
I was two years into starting my cosmetic clinic in downtown Toronto and had just hired my second employee when COVID hit. Despite my 70-hour weeks, gargantuan bank debt, and seemingly never-ending battles with local bureaucracy, my small business has received exactly zilch from government. I was all the more furious then after reading the recent exposé on the complete lack of checks being placed on the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit program (CERB).
How fair and accurate is it to call Canada a nation of immigrants? Since I announced my candidacy for the People's Party of Canada (PPC)--a party calling for more moderated immigration rates--I've experienced personally the rebuff of "but we're a nation of immigrants!" around a dozen or so times. Most recently, I saw it lodged against our party as a whole. With special focus on Afghan-born PPC candidate Mirwais Nasiri, the editorial board of the Winnipeg Free Press alleged that we didn't appreciate Canada's essential character of openness and, outside of our First Nations candidates at least, were hypocrites for taking the stance that we do.
The ongoing roll-out of the People's Party of Canada (PPC)'s immigration platform is no doubt being well received by a sizeable cross-section of the Canadian public. According to public surveys, the PPC has tougher, more selective immigration policies, something long feared and attacked by special interests, which the long suffering public a large wants. For the Canadian voter, this makes the PPC a genuine, clear alternative to the other one-step-forward-two-steps-back, old parties.
Take the Conservatives. One recent poll showed that 81 percent of their supporters are not happy with the rate of integration in Canada and want Ottawa to prioritize putting limits on immigration as a result. When party leader Andrew Scheer introduced his immigration platform last month, however, he refused to even tell the public what he thought Canada's annual immigration rate should be. Most took this to mean one thing: no big changes from the Trudeau status quo.