Thursday, March 25, 2010

Foreign Issues in Canadian Elections?

On March 24, 2010, the
Toronto Star reported that Harbans Jandali, president of the Ontario Sikh and Gurdwara Council as stating, "Unless they make amends quickly, the Liberals will definitely lose this community's votes." He was reacting to Premier Dalton McGuinty's 30-minute meeting with Indian transport minister Kamal Nath, in Toronto to give a talk to the Canada-India Business Council.

Jandali alleges that Nath abetted riots in which more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed. The riots were in reaction to the 1984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. 

The Star did not publish this letter. 

Re Sikh leaders promise to make McGuinty pay, Mar. 24:

I hope the president of the Ontario Sikh and Gurdwara Council was misquoted when he threatened to make an event in India an issue in an Ontario election. Otherwise, it means that when I cast my ballot over such matters as education, health care, the environment, and social welfare, my vote will be cancelled because of an incident in a foreign land with no relevance to Ontario.

My parents came to Toronto in the 1920s. Not once did they talk of the politics of their native Austria. They did not force me to learn German, or wear the costumes of their homeland. They never spoke of the glories of the homeland, because Canada had become their homeland. They always voted for what they thought best for Toronto, for Ontario, for Canada, not for Austria. All they wanted was to blend into their chosen culture.

Dare we hope that later immigrants do likewise, and not threaten Canadian politicians with issues beyond our borders?

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Both Sides of the Argument

The British House of Lords is currently debating a law requiring school children, as young as five to receive "non-judgemental" information on abortion and homosexuality. Promoters of the law claim that children must receive "both sides of the argument."

One wonders why legislators do not require abortionists to provide "both sides of the argument" before doing their work. Why is it that only those who believe in preserving life must plead their case?

I would like to know why legislators do not require "both sides of the argument" when homosexuals are permitted to parade naked down our main street while simulating anal sex and masturbation.

The common media would have us believe that any expression of disagreement with such behaviour constitutes hatred and "homophobia." (That dreadful word now designates anyone who expresses any disagreement with the ever-expanding homosexual agenda.)

Politicians in the United Kingdom and some in Canada are caught in the threefold trap set by the media, well-funded homosexual activists, and the abortion lobby. None of this trio represents democratic opinion. Just one per cent of Canadian say they are homosexual.*  The vast majority find abortion morally wrong.**  As for media, the public consistently ranks its journalists near the bottom of any survey of esteem for the various professions.***

Two reasons for the common opinion about the media have just come to hand. The Globe and Mail did not report the poll on abortion mentioned above. While the March 13 Toronto Star buried "abortion" in a mountain of words, preferring to massage the story into one of "values" and left-leaning ideology. This constitutes yet another example of the media reporting only what they want the public to know.

* The Globe and Mail, June 16, 2004. The other "side of the argument" claims five to 10 per cent. Even that small number wields an unjustified influence in our courts, human rights commissions and legislatures.

** 75 per cent of Canadians deem abortion morally wrong, according to a February 2010 poll by Allan Gregg of Harris-Decima and Dr. Andre Turcotte of Carleton School of Journalism. Other polls that produced similar results: Angus Reid January 2010, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid July 2012, Ipsos Reid June 2014.

*** The Pew Research Center reported in September 2009 that 60 per cent of the U.S. public believe news coverage to be inaccurate and biased. That's up from 45 per cent in 1985.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Children as Objects of Marketing

The Toronto Star recently published a report dealing with the exploitation of children. It described store operators' plans to turn children into fashionistas. This published letter opens with a quote from one such operator.

Re Luxury looks for Mommy and me, Feb. 25, 2010:

"Once kids turn 5 or 6, they start to know what they want."

As the father of four children, I can state that is nonsense. This observation is a commercial hope, not a fact of life.

The commercial world already exerts too much pressure on young people, robbing them of their childhood. Some children and unwitting parents have been lured into the abominable cosmetics market. A 10-year old child is not a young man or woman.

Mature parents are obligated to protect their children, and refuse to be intimidated by such blatant exploitation.