Multiculturlism, Pc, And Life

[Alliance Fanatic]

Would you fight for Canada. Thats the question that I would like to ask people. It seems that over the past 30 years, Canada has been turned into a sewer. Social Liberalism has accomplished the following

- 1/3 of all women will be sexually abused by the age of 21

-50% of marriages end in divorce

-we no longer value life, 100,000 abortions a year are happening in Canada

-Ghettoization has been occuring in cities such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver

-only 40% of Canadians polled said that this country is worth fighting for.

-The vast majority of Canadian's are completely arrogant about the charter of rights, yet they are also proud of it

-Poll after poll show that freedom of religion is put at the bottom of the list of the most importants freedom's in Canada.

-Teachers will be fired for being christian

-Catholic schools are forced to accomodate gays by allowing them to bring dates to the prom

This seems to be what the new Canada values. However many support this destruction of Canada. Multiculturalists continue to insist that this new Canada will be made up of an ethnically diverse landscape, and we will all know that we are all minorites. However what was wrong with Canadian culture, and heritage, what was so evil about it, of course their was racism, and poverty, but why should we tear down the country and build a new one. Why should we tear down the country that 100,000 Canadian's died fighting for and start a new one.

Well how are you able to destroy a country, sever its roots. The first things in order to destroy a country are

-official multiculturalism, teach children at schools about our multicultural heritage at the expense of canadian history.

-Immigration, after multiculturalism, bring in mass immigration, call all of those who want to embrace Canada uncle toms, and then start ghettoization, once this is done liberals must give special priviliges based on race. This is strangely the exact opposite of what martin luther king said, but.

-Race, call all of those opposing a new socially liberal agenda a racist, hitler lover, nazi, klansmen, bigot, and you will surely silence them.

What type of country should we build, many may ask. My answer is simple. A color blind country, based on traditional values.

-Immigration should be reduced, new immigrants must take classes learning english, and an introduction to Canadian History. Once that is done encourage immigrants to spread out across the country so as to encourage assimilation. Immigrants should become patriotic Canadian's, and should sever ties to their home country and adopt Canada.

-If any immigrants commit crimes they should immediatly be deported. If a country is ready to accept people then they should work hard to make this country great, and not to exploit it.

-Human Rights Boards have acted as though they are god in making decisions. They are usually all leftists, who believe their duty is to make sure that those who are not politically correct, and christians must be punished for viewing their beliefs.

-Racism, Canada should outlaw such groups as the klan, and the national alliance, which are no better than Hezbollah, or the Tamil Tigers. However Canada must not punish Canadians for making politically incorrect views on matters of race, or those who are voicing an opinion against homosexaulity, that would be undemocratic.

-Scrap Multiculturalism

[Moderate Centrist]

I don't think someone's willing ness to fight for Canada is a valid indication of their status as a Canadian.

Define fight first of all.

[Moderate Centrist]

Also, there are some people, and I presently am one of them that would favor a more isolationist policy for Foreign Affairs.

Would I fight for Canada. If our homeland was attacked I'd probably do it.

However to expect Canadians to run around the world fighting in wars that have nothing to do with us is asking too much.

[westcoast99]

My god AF. you're at it again.

Teachers will be fired for being christian

Give me a break.

[Rob1963]

And this from someone who wants his party taken over by Alliance Fanatics. Give ME a break!!

[Craig Read]

AF, some good points. You forget that Cdns are very left wing so that some of your points which are centrist are deemed in Canada - 'wild right wing Americanims'. They are depicted in grave fascist overtones by the overwrought press and snivelling educated types, who gain their knowledge from the CBC.

-Immigration; only 25 % enter the country for jobs and we import countless refugees who are terrorists - apparently in Toronto about 100 K muslims are here without work. Who knows what these people are doing here.

-Emigration; We lose 40 K people per year to the States, this means that our 30 millions would really be 50 millions if we had a climate conducive to job creation and low taxes in Canada

-Religion; the US is far more religious than Canada and this can be construed as good or bad. The divorce rate is just as high there as here, so religion by itself means nothing qua family unity. However Gay Marriage definitely undermines the institution and the makeup of society and should be revoked.

Individual Responsibility - this is the key difference i think between the countries. Canada has a living standards issue and a wage/take home pay problem. IR is not beholden in Canada as a great ideal. It is in the US. The system in the States forces you to get involved and get informed. In Canada you can sleep walk through life.

The inertia in Canada is so great - the political systems so rotten and populated by such bad advisers and handlers and opinion pollsters - that change is not to be expected.

AF - if the CA wants power - they have 2 choices after uniting with the Tories:

1. Fiscal Conserative policies and major reform platforms that are consistently argued and presented.

2. Lose the Social Conservatism.

[Michael Hardner]

Social Liberalism has accomplished the following

I see individualism and greed as being an equal weighted factor in the loss of morality in North America. While it's true that sexual promiscuity and divorce have destroyed the traditional family, the insatiable drive for weath and its baubles have created a materialistic society unseen at any time in history.

People will cheat on their taxes, mislead shareholders, anything to help themselves personally. This new morality is typified by PC leader Peter McKay, who has recently tried to boost his own career with a bald faced lie.

We need to find a new comunity spirit.

[Morgan]

1. Social liberalism leads to the decline of family and religion, which in turn, allows for greed, self-gratification, egotism, slippery slope mentality to flourish.

The stereotypical image of a liberal as intellectual, anti-capitalist tree hugger, walking around in Birkenstock sandals, wire-rimmed glasses is bogus. Liberals love money inspite of impuning capitalism/corporate greed and trying to pass themselves off as Mother Teresa clones.

For example, the stock market and energy debacles were developed under Clinton's watch. Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, is known as the "main architect" of Clinton's economic policy. Under Rubin the SEC did nothing as a regulatory agency, increased globalization was promoted, taxpayer $ was wasted by propping up the IMF and Third World countries, which were already indebted to investment banks like Goldman Sachs which was the bank Rubin was at before coming to work for the Clinton Admin. to name a few things that had negative consequences on North American economy.

Btw, Robert Rubin is a heavywieight with CitiCorp, which was the biggest creditor of Enron. BBC and others reported that apparently 1month before the Enron scandal broke, Rubin called the US Treasury Dept. to pressure bond rating agencies like Moody's not to downgrade the value of Enron stocks. The Bush Admin. refused. Fy, Ken Lay routinely played golf with Clinton, slept over at the White House, and was an advisor on Clinton's energy policy.

Then there's other examples of social liberal greed and hypocrisy closer to home. Let's see...there's Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Line and foreign tax havens. And there's Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. which had world wide influence in a variety of industries like TotalFinaElf, oil company, and Bertelsmann AG, European publishing giant, Investors Group, mutual funds dealer and major market player, GreatWestLife, largest Canadian insurance company.

Ironically enough, as much as Bush haters associate the Carlyle Group with board member, George Bush Sr., they never mention that the Carlyle Group was founded in 1987 by a Democrat, David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's administration. Also, that Arthur Levitt who headed the SEC under Clinton is a senior advisor with Carlyle. Oh, btw, Paul Desmarais is a member of the Carlyle Group. Ooops...

Then there's that famous socialist, our own Canadian PM, who is touted as the bleeding hearts' point man who wants equality for all, the humble bumbler from Shawinigan, one of 19 poor children of a poor French Canadian family. Hee, hee...I think Mark Steyn's column says it all about this capitalist in sheep's clothing and about the duplicity of liberalism:

How come Chretien became a multi-millionaire while devoting his life to "public service?"

So, unlike, say, Dick Cheney, much of what we know about the Prime Minister’s financial affairs is a matter of guesswork, augmented by the occasional comment from the man himself: asked how fast he was making money in the private sector, he replied, “I’m beating them all, even Trudeau.” One is also struck, not for the first time, by the Canadian media’s lack of curiosity about the extraordinary ease with which a man born the 18th of 19 children of a Quebec mill-working family and someone who claims to have devoted his life to “public service” should have wound up a multi-millionaire.

Canada’s “national identity” is supposedly to be found in its “social programs”; Canadians are supposedly willing to pay higher taxes in order for a more equitable society. Quite where the 50% of income the government takes winds up is hard to see: I can’t help noticing that I see far more beggars on the streets of Toronto and Montreal than in Boston, New York, Chicago, or any other American city I’ve been in recently, whether run by Republicans or Democrats. The hospitals in Canada are so overloaded they’re unable to observe even basic hygiene procedures, a basic failing which covers everything from the Ontario health system’s incubation of SARS to Labrador’s gift of Chlamydia to its gynaecological patients. M Chrétien lectured Wall Street that, while Canada had fewer millionaires than America, it also had fewer poor people. But what you can’t help noticing is that the plutocrats we do have are almost all well-connected Liberal Party types or businessmen whose businesses are either subsidized or regulated by the government. That’s why in the one-party state we wind up not just with one party but one bookstore chain, one media chain, etc. Meanwhile, the gap in income between the governing class – in its broadest sense – and the governed grows ever wider. After 40 years as a guy who knows “what’s necessary” for others to do, M Chrétien is merely the most prominent exemplar of the system.

As for McKay trying to boost his carrer with a bald faced lie...he and Dan Orchard make good partners in the art of lying. Orchard pretended he was a conservative, when everyone knows he's an NDP'er at heart. McKay pretended he was a political leader, but we know now he was just a cagey politician. The 'lies" of Orchard and McKay were off-setting is the way I see it. Besides how much more damage could McKay do to the image of the PC's than what Joe Who has done over the years? Puhlease...

[Michael Hardner]

The 'lies" of Orchard and McKay were off-setting is the way I see it.

Of course that's how you see it. And that's the point. After the immoral act has been committed, the immoralists that benefit must find a way to rationalize. This is exactly what you have done.

I agree that the left has no moral high ground over the loss of morality, but your examples of Clinton, Martin and Chretien don't show this. You have to use leftists as examples.

[SirRiff]

how do any of these problems have to do with political morality?

it seems obvious to me that large populations through the history of time inevitably cause social inefficiencies which cause violence, poverty, and hatred. it has been this way in ancient egypt, in rome, the middle east, in america, everywhere. show me a 1st world industrialized nation with urban population that DOESNT have these problems.

science 101- if you are proporting something to be a variable (ie- "liberal morality" or whatever lame excuse you came up with) you need to be able to point to a control situation which indicates this variable does effect the outcome.

sirriff

[Morgan]

1. Hardner said:

I agree that the left has no moral high ground over the loss of morality, but your examples of Clinton, Martin and Chretien don't show this. You have to use leftists as examples.

These 3 men are standard bears for the left...what else do they represent? Oh, I remember now! Based on the misguided comments of your previous posts, you probably believe these 3 three leaders reflect "mainstream" America/Canada, maybe even a tad right of centre??? yuk, yuk, yuk. If you can't see McKay as the Red Tory he is[ie. liberal], there's no point in debating you any further.

2. SirRiff said:

science 101- if you are proporting something to be a variable (ie- "liberal morality" or whatever lame excuse you came up with) you need to be able to point to a control situation which indicates this variable does effect the outcome.

You must have dropped out of basic Science 101, which requires sequential thinking, no assumptions without proof, good command of English to present facts or hypotheses. You show none of the above. Your post consists of criticism with no counter argument. To wrongfully assume that my reply to Hardner was off topic demonstrates a profound lack of diligence in reading through the thread and thereby jumping to an inaccurate assumption. To lecture anyone, much less me, about basic 101 Science, all the while showing an inability to express ideas in proper English is ironic indeed.

Listen up, Riff. The general topic under discussion was how social liberalism in the course of the past 30 years has contributed to a general decline in various spheres of post modern society. Hardner's specific post to which I replied was his claim that greed was an equally weighted factor for the decline but he linked greed to conservativism by using a pseudo-conservative political leader as his example.

While it's true that sexual promiscuity and divorce have destroyed the traditional family, the insatiable drive for weath and its baubles have created a materialistic society unseen at any time in history.

I replied to Hardner by saying that "greed" was part and parcel of social liberalism...the slippery slope, the non-judgmental approach to life, the moral relativism mindset. Then I used 3 examples of left wing standard bearers in the political arena, as he tried to do with a pseudo conservative, to symbolize my point.

I used a quote from Mark Steyn, who said it best about the duplicity of liberalism. I'll repeat part of it since it's obvious you missed it:

M Chrétien lectured Wall Street that, while Canada had fewer millionaires than America, it also had fewer poor people. But what you can’t help noticing is that the plutocrats we do have are almost all well-connected Liberal Party types or businessmen whose businesses are either subsidized or regulated by the government. Meanwhile, the gap in income between the governing class – in its broadest sense – and the governed grows ever wider. After 40 years as a guy who knows “what’s necessary” for others to do, M Chrétien is merely the most prominent exemplar of the system.

[SirRiff]

You must have dropped out of basic Science 101, which requires sequential thinking, no assumptions without proof, good command of English to present facts or hypotheses. You show none of the above. Your post consists of criticism with no counter argument. To wrongfully assume that my reply to Hardner was off topic demonstrates a profound lack of diligence in reading through the thread and thereby jumping to an inaccurate assumption. To lecture anyone, much less me, about basic 101 Science, all the while showing an inability to express ideas in proper English is ironic indeed.

Listen up, Riff. The general topic under discussion was how social liberalism in the course of the past 30 years has contributed to a general decline in various spheres of post modern society. Hardner's specific post to which I replied was his claim that greed was an equally weighted factor for the decline but he linked greed to conservativism by using a pseudo-conservative political leader as his example.

what the hell are you talking about Morgan?

my english was perfectly sound but i dont know how you came to conclude i was talking to you, about you, or why you think you have a great explanation for something.

science 101 indeed.

sirriff

[Michael Hardner]

Based on the misguided comments of your previous posts, you probably believe these 3 three leaders reflect "mainstream" America/Canada

Well, since they were or will be elected to 3 majorities (Chretien) two presidential terms (Clinton) and at least one majority government (Martin-trust me) then, yes, I guess I would take them to mean mainstream.

Who is a better example of the mainstream ? Harper ? Or other popular candidates like Gilles Duceppe ?

As for being left, would leftists cut transfer payments for healthcare as the Liberals did ? Would they slash welfare, as happened during Clinton's watch with the Contract With America ?

Calling centrist types like Joe Clark, Chretien etc. "socialists" "liberals" etc. is a cute way to get attention but it doesn't seem quite mature since nobody really referred to these types as socialists 15 years ago when the NDP was very socialist indeed - advocating the nationalization of industries etc.

Were you alive then ?

[Morgan]

SieRiff,

I apologize for taking your criticism of the entire discussion/thread personally. But I still think your comments are lacking in substance.

Michael Hardner,

The Liberals are no different than the Democrat Party...both have shifted dramatically left over the years. Zell Miller is likely older than than you and I combined and he's seen the left change so radically that he cannot identify with the party anymore. Harper and Bush are both moderate centist leaders. The right has moved left as well, but they're still called conservatives because they're right of the "other guys."

Your obtuse crowing about the "mainstream" electing Chretien and Clinton and soon Martin is a reflection of what I quoted you from Alexander Tyler. He saw democracies as going through cycles. He said the danger of democracies is when people realize they can vote in their own benefits.That realization starts the decline of a democracy.

As KrustyKidd pointed out, politicians have responded to that "realization" in their voting public, so they race to offer more benefits/entitlements. Eventually the fiscal burden of these self serving decisions cause a democracy to come undone. Alexander Tyler had studied the Greek civilization closely when he came up with these observations.

Going down the road of liberalism means there will be a "bust "eventually. In Canada, we're seeing it sooner than the USA, because socialism has been in place longer. Look at the failing military, the failing health care, the failing education system, the general moral decline. Everything is frayed at the seams and there seems to be a malaise in the body public. The good thing about same sex marriage controversy in Canada is that at least the issue has people's blood boiling when previously they seemed asleep.

If an NDP government is ever elected federally, it's as good as putting this country on a life support system.

[Michael Hardner]

The Liberals are no different than the Democrat Party...both have shifted dramatically left over the years. Zell Miller is likely older than than you and I combined and he's seen the left change so radically that he cannot identify with the party anymore. Harper and Bush are both moderate centist leaders. The right has moved left as well, but they're still called conservatives because they're right of the "other guys."

I have given some examples of my case - the cuts to transfer payments, welfare, etc.

You simply say something - "both have shifted dramatically left" - and it's assumed to be true without any evidence

Your obtuse crowing about the "mainstream" electing Chretien and Clinton and soon Martin is a reflection of what I quoted you from Alexander Tyler.

You haven't supported your assertion that those three leaders are NOT mainstream.

I have shown how the three were/will be elected to 6+ terms.

Again, no evidence from you.

He saw democracies as going through cycles. He said the danger of democracies is when people realize they can vote in their own benefits.That realization starts the decline of a democracy.

People should vote against their own interests then ?

This makes no sense.

As KrustyKidd pointed out, politicians have responded to that "realization" in their voting public, so they race to offer more benefits/entitlements. Eventually the fiscal burden of these self serving decisions cause a democracy to come undone. Alexander Tyler had studied the Greek civilization closely when he came up with these observations.

Again, no evidence.

What entitlements have been offered to the lowest 50% of workers ? EI cuts ? Welfare cuts ? Healthcare cuts ?

Going down the road of liberalism means there will be a "bust "eventually. In Canada, we're seeing it sooner than the USA, because socialism has been in place longer. Look at the failing military, the failing health care, the failing education system, the general moral decline. Everything is frayed at the seams and there seems to be a malaise in the body public.

You're asserting that socialism has been in place in the USA ? When ? How ?

The systems are fraying for many reasons.

The good thing about same sex marriage controversy in Canada is that at least the issue has people's blood boiling when previously they seemed asleep.

If you're saying that centre-left positions on social issues have moved to the left over the last twenty years, then I agree with that.

But, then again, attitudes have changed greatly over the last twenty years. This can be seen clearly if you look at attitudes towards homosexuality in younger people vs. older people.

If an NDP government is ever elected federally, it's as good as putting this country on a life support system.

I won't disagree with you here. I don't think Layton's "urban issues" platform speaks to the whole country. And opposing free trade at this point doesn't make sense.

We'll never have the chance to see if you're correct on that one, though.

[daniel]

The Liberals are no different than the Democrat Party...both have shifted dramatically left over the years. ...Harper and Bush are both moderate centist leaders. The right has moved left as well, ...

You have got to be kidding. I wouldn't call cuts to provincial transfer payments, health care, post-secondary education, personal income taxes, UI payments socialist policies.

As for Liberals being no different from the Democrats, that's only true since Martin became finance minister. Before that the Democrats were equivalent to the PCs and all the political analysts knew this.

If you think that Bush is a Moderate Centralist, what kind of policies would you expect from an ultra neo-con? I wouldn't call his anti-gay marriage, his anti-abortion legislation, his revoking of Kyoto, cuts to aid for countries practicing abortion, his with-us or against-us doctrines moderate at all.

[Craig Read]

No i call it common sense policy. The CA is a barely right of centre group - their fiscal policies are common sense and supplied side driven. They are the right policies and exactly what Canada needs. Only in Canada can such a left wing country call moderate economic stimulus 'right wing', and intone in sonorous CBC voice that such ideals will destroy your Canadian identity. So pre 1965 when Canada had lower taxes than the States i guess the people then perforce felt unCanadian. Maybe ask gramps that question.

Smart economics is neither right nor left, but adheres to paying bills and funding society's various programs. What is right of centre about the CA is their social conservatism which does appeal to the West but not the liberal types in Ont., who believe that nothing matters and all is relative. A rather sad ideology.

Bush has increased spending [18 %], created a new Medicare entitlement program, erected tariffs, bashed China, talked down the dollar and shown little interest in hemispheric free trade. And you call Bush a Neo-Con ?

In Foreign policy thankfully yes he is. But not in trade policy.

I am just happy that the grownups are back in the WH and little Billy Clinton and friends are outside with faces pressed against the windows wondering when the next pajama party is.

[Goldie]

You know I always felt that even if a person was born in say Africa or Europe or anywhere for that matter so long as they believed in such things as freedom of the individual, Good accountable government, Free markets as a means to greater prosperity ECT. That they where in fact Canadian even if only at heart. Doesn't that make them more Canadian than Joe Canadian by default (birth) whom doesn't care about any of the above.

Many of the problems with North American society can be resolved with political will that must start with the people. Looking at a problem and saying Canada is going into the toilet is probabley the wrong attitude and I guess it will take immigrants with a new pioneering spirit to rebuild and restore those principles that this country was founded on.

[daniel]

The Liberals are no different than the Democrat Party...both have shifted dramatically left over the years.

The CA is a barely right of centre group -

The last time I heard this kind of outright misrepresenation was about twenty years ago when someone said Ronald Reagan was a communist.

Oh and don't say "common sense" to anybody from Ontario anymore. We're trying to emerge from eight years of hell but the damage from the Common Sensers is long reaching.

[Morgan]

Strange that you don't recognize the hell inflicted on Canada by all the years of the LPOC in charge of Canada.

Let's see there's Communist loving Trudeau who put the wheels in motion for decline. Trudeau was a Liberal PM, wasn't he, Daniel, and he ruled for how many years? Did you know that when Trudeau was a student at the London School of Economics, his classmates referred to him a "Fabian Socialist?" Trudeau studied under a socialist economist, Harold Laski, and became convinced of the superiority of a socialist managed economy over free enterprise. Trudeau gave out entitlements left and right, weakened the Cdn. dollar like never before, and ran up a national debt of $200 billion.

Wasn't the Charter of Rights Trudeau's baby? Through this carefully crafted Charter,Trudeau managed to subordinate the wishes of the electorate through their PM's to the ACTIVIST whims of a PM-appointed Supreme Court. And there's no denying that Trudeau was a social activist par excellence. In 1969, Trudeau was asked by some students what kind of society he would like to make in Canada – socialist or capitalist. Trudeau replied: "Labour Party socialist – or Cuban socialism or Chinese socialism – socialism from each according to his means."

Then there is Chretien, who learned all his socialist ideas at the knee of Pierre. Chretien has been in power for 8 long years as well. Chretien has increased immigration from non-Christian Third World countries, has almost become the patron saint of Africa and the poor, he's been unwavering in his support of Communist leaders[go Castro!], Chretien promoted same sex marriage for Canada, so this country can be only ONE OF THREE UN countries to do this, Chretien has also promoted de-criminalization of pot and through his policies on re-distribution of wealth has made Canadian citizens one of the highest taxed citizens of all G8 countries.

As for Paullie Wallie...he's already a committed socialist and believer of the New World Order. Paul's mentor, who has just moved into a leased apartment in Ottawa, is Maurice Strong, under secretary to Kofi Annan. Paul already is jumping on Chretien's noblesse oblige Third World band wagon by declaring his support for forgiving the debts/loans of Third World countries. Who is going to pay for all that bleeding heart generosity, Daniel? Furthermore, Paul Martin announced on Dec.03 that he is committed to the Kyoto Protocol which would represent a death blow to many Canadian businesses and is merely a re-packaged version of old socialist tripe ie. re-distribution of First World wealth to Third World countries.

Maurice Strong backs/directs Martin's pro-Kyoto stance

Veteran environmentalist and businessman Maurice Strong, a friend of Martin's, told CBC Newsworld that Martin understands the economic advantages that would flow from building an energy-efficient, low-emissions economy. ``Canada has an opportunity to take a real lead,'' said Strong. ``Just from my understanding of what Mr. Martin has said publicly, I believe that he wants to make Canada a leader and give Canada the kind of economic advantages that can flow from making the changes required.''

Maurice Strong just won the Public Welfare medal and has been called a "citizen of the world." Argh. Maurice was quoted as follows about his relationship with Paulie Wallie:

Although he has leased an apartment in Ottawa and meets regularly with Martin, Strong said yesterday: "I speak to Mr. Martin, not for Mr. Martin."

Don't bet the farm on Maurice's words, Daniel.

Maurice Strong, diplomat extra-ordinaire, wins Public Welfare Medal

[daniel]

I don't call the shift from Trudeau to Martin to the left. If finance is all that matters to you, Martin got rid of the deficit on the backs of alot of Trudeau/Pearson/Douglas initiatives. He went further than what Mulroney tried to do. You call that shifting to the left?

God bless Trudeau, Douglas, and Strong.

[Morgan]

Daniel said:

I don't call the shift from Trudeau to Martin to the left.

Trudeau did not have the chance to dismantle our sovereignity and pay allegiance to the UN. Strong will have Martin doing daily genuflections to Kofi Annan in short order.

Daniel said:

If finance is all that matters to you, Martin got rid of the deficit on the backs of alot of Trudeau/Pearson/Douglas initiatives.

Ummm... if deficit reduction is done by raising taxes, as was done under the Chretien-Martin regime, this is not conservatism at work.

Daniel said:

God bless Trudeau, Douglas, and Strong.

LOL. We'll see how happy you are with your socialist heroes once the New World Order is in place. LOL. If you love Trudeau/Douglas/Strong, I'm sure you'll absolutely adore "multicultural" movers and shakers like the leaders of China and Zimbabwe calling the shots for matters that affect Canadians. Read this and weep.

Global Governance is Global Socialism

Global governance is a creation of the International Socialist Party, and particularly, of Willy Brandt, former Chair of Socialist International. Brandt invited 30 world leaders to a meeting in Stockholm, Sweden on April 22, 1991. Among the guests were Ingvar Carlsson, then Prime Minister of Sweden, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, and Chair of the 1987 U.N. Commission on Environment and Development.

The meeting was reported in the EcoSocialist Review, Summer, 1991, a publication of the Democratic Socialists of America. The meeting report says: "The 28 proposals concurred upon represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and [makes] clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."

The final recommendation in this report called for the creation of an Independent Commission on Global Governance.

Willy Brandt first secured the blessing of, and funding from, Butrous-Butrous Ghali, then U.N. Secretary General, and proceeded to appoint 28 members to his Commission on Global Governance (CGG). Ignvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, past president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, where named co-chairs.

The CGG worked for three years and published its 410-page report in 1995. Titled Our Global Neighborhood, the report set forth very specific recommendations to achieve the socialists' vision of global governance. As is now common practice, a network of NGOs (non-government organizations) was created to advance the report's agenda.

The NGOs fashioned the CGG recommendations into a smaller, easy-to-read "Charter for Global Democracy." The Charter consolidated the CGG recommendations into 12 principles for restructuring and empowering the United Nations to implement global governance.

Simultaneously, Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission on Global Governance, was named Executive Coordinator for U.N. Reform, and put in charge of restructuring the U.N. in preparation for the new role the U.N. expects to perform in the 21st century. 

No, the U.N. will not suddenly be in control of all national governments when the declaration is adopted. In fact, the world will appear pretty much the same for some time after the Millennium Assembly adjourns. But it will not be the same. The U.N. will have the authority to move forward with the implementation of global governance.

Mugabe envisions an alternative world order headed by China, Dec.03/03

The current world order is "unjust and unsustainable" and needs an alternative headed by communist China, according to Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.

[Craig Read]

Nice post. The UNO and global governance issues have little in common with freedom. The UNO strikes me as a little more than another instance of Egyptian Pharaohnic empire building. Northern lands would be vassals to the King's estate based in Geneva and New York, beholden to dumb ideas and dumber leaders such as Mugabe.

No thanks.

The PC/multicultural nonsense in Canada is so out of hand that we now have a legal system that will allow Sharia to be used in disputes between Muslims in Canada.

How long before it is used between Muslims and anyone else to settle disputes ?

In Civil disputes in Canada between Muslims and the rest, the Darul Qada can adjudicate a Koran based judgement that will be enforced in secular courts.

MADNESS.

Canada is a Judeao-Christian country, not some polyglot, Multi-cultural UN summer camp.