May 18, 2006: Welcome, PM Howard of Australia

Update: There is a new post below on activists and networks, entitled "May 18, 2006: Memory Lane & Questions"




The Centre is spinning ... out of control

John Ibbitson: Australia's Prime Minister Howard has a lot in common with Harper -- a piece of partisan journalism leaning more toward nasty than to welcoming a fellow Commonwealth Prime Minister Globe and Mail, May 17, 2006

Usually, only statesmen of Great Powers or great interest are asked to address the Parliament of Canada: Vicente Fox, Kofi Annan, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton.

So who asked John Howard?

[Today] Australia's Prime Minister will address the combined House of Commons and Senate.

The implication? My guess? That anyone invited by a Prime Minister from the West would not pass muster in the Centre ... where they know which people are meant to be courted or honoured ... a hold-over from the good old days of Librano$ Canada.

Statesmen? Kofi Annan, he of the sullied reputation at UN and its oil-for-food scandal, the endless talk fests and the underwhelming accomplishments ... think the Congo, Rwanda, Darfur. But the Liberals parroted the polite fiction that the UN provides moral leadership for the world ... a jest of course, as endless reports have revealed. And Vincente Fox? What deals were in the works under the Liberals and now, perhaps are in jeopardy ... the kind of thing those from the Centre would understand and that the network would understand or be involved in? Mr. Fox can't even keep his own citizens in their own country, Mexico's economy is so poor, though it is burgeoning as a transshipment point and a country for drugs and the drug cartels. Furthermore, Pres. Fox has encouraged his citizens to flee to the US. Greatness hardly accrues to him, though he should be of great interest to the citizens of the US and perhaps Canada, in preservation of the national interest and the rule of law, the ability to hold off the hordes trying to get in. ... Or would that circumvent some UN feel-good resolution about the poor of the world to whom we owe our homeland and its hard-earned wealth?

PM Howard is well-qualified to address the Canadian Parliament. He is a man of great courage and firm principles. He has the kind of courage that compelled him to follow his convictions concerning the security of his own Australian citizens, despite the negative clucking from the world's leftists and socialists, the talking heads and the champage socialists peopling the UN, seat of the world's (particularly Jean Chretien and Paul Martin's) "moral" leadership. Remember the refugees, the boat people who landed on Australia's coasts? The detention camp(s)? the rampages? The fires? The lips sewn together in protest at not having free reign to invade Australia at will ... as long as they mouthed the sacred word "refugee"?

Prime Minister Howard stood so tall in his response, despite the world's disapprobation that he has won four straight terms from the citizens of his own country. He is a man to be reckoned with, with the kind of leadership ability that says I stand for something more than just pandering to political correctness (gone mad), gaining monetary advantage, and buying votes from the ethnic communities and good will from non-citizens.

And then there is this Ibbitson gem:

Canada and Australia are also part of a mythical beast known as the Anglosphere: Britain and the settler nations of the United States, Canada. Australia and New Zealand.

Canada, of course, differs from the others in that it is a French speaking country, and it was Quebec opposition that largely contributed to the Chretien government's decision not to participate in the Iraq war -- the first time this country has failed to join an action supported by both the United States and Britain.

Mythical? Our Commonwealth? The Anglosphere, a mythical beast? The Anglosphere exists and it is a beacon to the world's disenfranchised. The problem for the Centre's talking heads, Ibbitson, for example, is that the US, that hotbed of democratic discussion and freedom, is part of the Anglosphere. Our biggest trading partner is not ... part of the Francophonie. Is that the problem for all those with plans? That our PM is not so concerned with the UN's good will, that he is more geared toward principle? That Quebec might not like any emphasis on the military ... on the fact that it is the fighting for democracy and to stop the world's terrorists from winning that soldiers fight and sometimes die?



Think of this young woman, Captain Goddard, who fought honourably and died for ideals beyond personal advantage. Sometimes freedom and its defense are bloody, deadly, and not adequately attained by peacekeeping, but we must be ready to defend this freedom and to stop the advance of barbarism -- which may be in Afghanistan and other areas now, but is marching toward our families. It is soldiers like Captain Goddard who answer the call to defend freedom, a part of the Anglosphere who know there are principles worth fighting for.


Canada is an "officially" bilingual country; it is not a French speaking country. Given the coercive nature of how the bilingualism policy has been applied, the oppressive nature of the social engineering--if you want to work--in forcing a minority language throughout the country, not in response to need but to promote the minority language to "make French speakers feel more at home throughout Canada", the bilingual policy has had a negative effect on this country. It has generated ill will and been most useful in maintaining one party's political hegemony. In its push to satisfy the minority ... and incidentally to give that minority extraordinary power over the high-level, highly remunerated jobs, it has almost guaranteed a split in the country between those who are advantaged by it and those who are not. It has generated such ill will that increasingly, there are Canadians who would prefer to study Mandarin or Hindi, Spanish or Arabic than be forced to study the language of their fellow citizens ... simply because they want to choose, not to be forced. That may have served the Centre and the Liberals but it has not served Canada as a nation well. It has been extremely divisive.

Concerning settler nations:

As for the Francophonie, the alternative to the Anglosphere, why do Senegal and Mali, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire, Algeria and the Cameroons speak French? Think Algeria and Vietnam and the insurrections, wars against the French colonization. Why do those countries belong to the Francophonie? Colonization and exploitation leading to language acquisition. Then there is Romania. Have you heard of any refugees fleeing to the countries of the Francophonie, the Francosphere? No, they head to the democracies of the Anglosphere.

Coercion is what people flee......Memo to Dyane ......



If the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson had been talking of the guy with the rose in his teeth, he of the socialist (communist) bent, Simpson would have described his strength, his leadership , but Simpson was speaking of Stephen Harper so he uses the word "General"..... What a mean-spirited journalistic tour of frustration at not having Liberals in power is the following article.

Everything's coming up roses for General Harper From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, May 17, 2006

Were this a military campaign, a writer would describe the first 100 days of the Harper government as a pincer movement to squeeze the Liberals. [Note the military terms; Liberals are negative on the military.]

Stephen Harper has taken the battle to the enemy's once-strongest territory, and he is meeting success. He has routed the Liberals among francophone Quebeckers, a historic pillar of Liberal strength, and now he is attacking their other stronghold, ethnic voters.

"General"? What is behind such vitriol against a newly-elected Prime Minister?


Bell Globemedia (The Globe and Mail) and CBC hate the Conservative government; it is obvious. Wasn't there a CRTC decision or choosing not to make a decision just lately ... concerning Canadian content ........ Would that account for this? Read on.



Coercion & the CRTC

Charles Adler: A sour note on CanCon music regs May 17, 06

[....] The Canadian record business wants the private broadcasters to play four Canadian tunes for every 10 tunes you hear. Forty per cent Canadian content is the objective du jour.

When I was spinning 'em back in the '70s, it was 30%. Eight years ago the CRTC, the federal agency which plays the role of national communications referee, boosted the Canadian Content (CanCon) number to 35%. Most observers believe that it is just a matter of time before broadcasters are forced to play 50% Canadian content.

[....] This isn't about protecting our country or its art. Find me a real artist who thinks the government ought to force art galleries to ensure that half their collections are Canadian. Know anyone who wants the government to force the symphonies to play 50% Canadian music?

This issue is about one thing only. Money. Canada's music recording entitlement culture, in the name of Canadian culture, wants a fatter slice of BEAVER PIE.