You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Canada’ tag.
It’s absolutely infuriating to see what’s happening in Canada with our prison policies—allowing male rapists into female prisons just because they claim to identify as women. This isn’t about being progressive; it’s about throwing common sense and safety out the window. Women in prison are already some of the most vulnerable people in society, and now they’re being forced to share space with men who have a documented history of sexual violence. It’s a betrayal of basic decency, and the fact that this is even up for debate shows how far down the rabbit hole of ideology we’ve gone.
The government’s justification—rooted in laws like Bill C-16 and Correctional Service Canada directives—pretends this is about human rights, but it’s a sham. These policies don’t protect anyone; they enable predators to exploit the system. There are countless stories of women in these facilities feeling terrorized, knowing they’re locked in with men who’ve committed heinous acts against other women. And when they speak up, they’re dismissed as bigots or punished with parole denials. It’s a sick twist of irony that the same system claiming to champion rights is stripping these women of their safety and dignity.
What’s worse is the spineless refusal to admit this is a problem. Instead of protecting female inmates, Canada’s leaders double down, hiding behind vague notions of inclusivity while ignoring the real-world consequences. How many assaults, how much trauma, will it take before they wake up? This isn’t about denying anyone’s identity—it’s about acknowledging biology and the risks it poses in a confined setting. Letting male rapists into women’s prisons isn’t justice; it’s reckless, infuriating, and a slap in the face to every woman who deserves better.
China’s interference in Canada and its politics involves a mix of economic leverage, influence operations, and clandestine activities aimed at shaping outcomes to favor Beijing’s interests. Based on what’s been uncovered so far, here’s how it’s playing out.
Economically, China has sunk deep roots into Canada. They’ve snapped up significant chunks of Vancouver’s real estate and farmland in British Columbia’s interior, giving them a tangible stake in the country’s resources and infrastructure. This isn’t just investment—it’s leverage. When you control housing markets or food production, you’ve got a say in local pressures and politics without firing a shot. Add to that the 2014 FIPA deal—a 31-year agreement giving Chinese businesses in Canada special protections, including the right to secretly sue the government if laws hurt their profits. It’s a quiet foothold, locking in influence for decades.
Politically, the interference gets murkier. Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, has tracked China’s hand in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. A February 2023 briefing straight to the Prime Minister’s Office laid it out: China “clandestinely and deceptively” meddled, pushing for candidates who’d either back Beijing or at least not rock the boat. Tactics included funneling cash—possibly $250,000 in one case—through proxies like community groups tied to the Chinese consulate in Toronto. They’ve also used disinformation, like WeChat campaigns smearing Conservative candidates as “anti-China” to scare Chinese-Canadian voters away from them. Think Kenny Chiu in 2021—his riding flipped after a barrage of messaging tied to Beijing’s playbook. The goal? Keep the Liberals in power, preferably with a minority government reliant on softer voices like the NDP.
Then there’s the personal angle. Take Michael Chong, a Conservative MP who got on China’s bad side by calling out their Uyghur policies. In 2021, Beijing allegedly targeted his family in Hong Kong, using a diplomat in Toronto to dig up dirt. Canada booted that guy, Zhao Wei, in 2023, but only after a stink was raised—showing how slow the response can be. And it’s not just MPs. CSIS says China’s Ministry of State Security and United Front Work Department have been cozying up to officials at all levels, sometimes with “honey pots” or trips to China funded by groups like the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs. Between 2006 and 2017, parliamentarians took 36 of those sponsored jaunts.
Beyond elections, China’s reach extends to intimidation and control. Reports of “overseas police stations” in cities like Toronto and Vancouver—denied by China’s embassy—suggest they’re keeping tabs on the diaspora, pressuring Chinese nationals to toe the line or face family back home paying the price. CSIS calls this a “sophisticated tool kit”—cyberattacks, economic coercion, even military flexing—all to bend Canada’s democracy without leaving fingerprints.
The kicker? Despite all this, the interference often skates by legally. The Commissioner of Canada Elections found China’s 2021 voter influence didn’t break election laws—free speech, even if it’s foreign-orchestrated, gets a pass. And while CSIS says it’s the “greatest strategic threat” to Canada’s security, the government’s been criticized for dragging its feet. Trudeau’s team got warnings as early as 2017 about PRC agents infiltrating “all levels of government,” yet responses—like expelling Zhao—only came under pressure.
So, China’s playing a long game: buy influence, sway votes, intimidate dissenters, and exploit Canada’s openness. It’s not about flipping the whole system—just nudging it enough to keep Beijing’s interests safe. How much it’s changed actual outcomes is debated, but the stain on trust is real. What’s Canada doing about it? Not enough, if you ask the folks who’ve been targeted.
This is why people call part of the Left “Looney”.
There is no current, direct evidence from official U.S. government channels suggesting an intention to annex Canada. However, there are several historical and contemporary discussions and actions that have fueled speculation on this topic:
Historical Context: Historically, there have been moments when the U.S. considered or discussed annexing parts or all of Canada, notably during the War of 1812 and in various post-war planning scenarios. For instance, the U.S. had plans like “War Plan Red” in the 1930s, which included strategies for dealing with Canada in the event of a conflict with Britain.
Recent Political Rhetoric: More recently, comments from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in 2025 have stirred debate. Trump has suggested using “economic force” to make Canada the 51st state, mentioning this during a press conference and on social media. This rhetoric has been interpreted by some as serious intent, while others see it as negotiation tactics or bluster aimed at influencing trade or other policy negotiations.
Public and Media Reaction: Posts on X and articles from various news outlets have discussed these comments, with some expressing concern over U.S. intentions. However, these are often framed as speculative or as reactions to Trump’s statements rather than evidence of a formal policy.
Legal and Practical Considerations: Legally, annexation would require constitutional amendments and referendums in both countries, processes that are complex and politically unfeasible without mutual consent. The practicalities of annexation, including military and economic implications, are also significant deterrents.
Canadian Response: Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have strongly rejected these ideas, with statements indicating no possibility of Canada becoming a U.S. state. This reflects a strong national sentiment against such a move.
While there is no concrete evidence of an active plan to annex Canada, the historical interest, coupled with recent provocative political rhetoric, keeps the topic in public discourse. However, without a formal policy or legislative action, these discussions remain speculative or part of political posturing rather than actual policy intent.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s decision to remove Chandra Arya from the leadership race is a concerning display of undemocratic behavior.
Arya, having met the necessary criteria and raised the required funds, should have been allowed to compete on an equal footing with other candidates. This exclusion smacks of internal manipulation, suggesting that the party leadership might be more interested in controlling the outcome than in fostering a fair and open contest.
Such actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the leadership selection process and whether it truly reflects the will of party members or is instead orchestrated by a select few. This move not only disenfranchises Arya’s supporters but also undermines the democratic ethos that the Liberal Party should champion.
It’s a clear indication that the party might prioritize maintaining a particular narrative or candidate over the democratic ideals it claims to uphold, thereby casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the entire leadership race and, by extension, the future governance of the country.
The decision by the current Liberal Government in Canada to prorogue Parliament is a stark demonstration of political opportunism trumping democratic principles.
By shutting down Parliament, they’ve effectively silenced the legislative body’s ability to hold the government accountable at a crucial juncture, especially with the looming leadership change. This move appears less about a necessary “reset” for government action and more about buying time to manage internal party politics ahead of a potential vote of non-confidence.
It’s particularly egregious given the backdrop of significant national and international issues that demand parliamentary attention, including economic recovery and international relations.
The prorogation not only delays important legislative work but also undermines the democratic process by preventing timely scrutiny of government actions, further eroding public trust in a government that seems more focused on self-preservation than public service. This is not governance; it’s a blatant manipulation of parliamentary procedure for partisan gain.
Here’s a summary of the key points from the transcript of the discussion between Abigail Shrier and Coleman Hughes on Identity, Speech, and Policy, moderated by Mia Hughes:
Recent U.S. Election and Trump’s Victory:
The discussion began with reflections on the surprising decisiveness of Trump’s victory in the recent election, with Abigail Shrier noting she avoids political predictions but was surprised by the clear win. Coleman Hughes mentioned he won a bet by predicting Trump’s win, highlighting a pattern of polls underestimating Trump due to people’s reluctance to admit their support.
Implications of Trump’s Second Term:
Both speakers discussed the potential implications of Trump’s second term. Abigail expressed hope that Trump’s administration would focus on efficiency, reducing government bloat, and addressing critical issues like the economy and border security. Coleman viewed Trump as a high-risk, high-reward candidate, capable of unexpected successes but also erratic.
Woke Culture and Resistance:
The conversation touched on the resistance from the “woke” left. Abigail argued that this group hasn’t faced real resistance, referring to examples like campus protests where no punitive actions were taken. Coleman agreed that while there might be less resistance this time due to Trump’s clear mandate, the “woke” ideology remains deeply entrenched in academia.
Challenges to Free Speech and Gender Ideology:
They discussed the challenges to free speech, particularly around gender ideology. Abigail’s book “Irreversible Damage” was cited as an example of censorship attempts, and she emphasized the need for courage in standing against misinformation in gender ideology. Coleman added the importance of including detransitioners in discussions on gender-affirming care, a perspective often sidelined.
Impact of Therapy on Youth:
Abigail Shrier’s book “Bad Therapy” was referenced, criticizing the over-therapization of children, suggesting it undermines resilience by labeling normal responses to life’s challenges as disorders. She highlighted how this could affect identity formation, with many young people identifying with their mental health issues.
Towards a Colorblind Society:
Coleman Hughes discussed his advocacy for a colorblind society, explaining it as an ideal where race is not a factor in treatment by individuals or government, though acknowledging the presence of racism. He compared this to the pursuit of peace as an unattainable but worthy goal.
Hope for Civil Society:
Both speakers expressed cautious optimism about returning to a civil society. Abigail pointed to a consensus among parents across political lines on key issues, suggesting that rebuilding families could be hopeful. Coleman was more skeptical, citing the increasing polarization due to social media echo chambers.
Message to Well-Meaning Supporters of Harmful Policies:
The speakers addressed well-meaning individuals supporting policies they believe are compassionate but potentially harmful. Coleman encouraged self-challenge and listening to opposing views, while Abigail urged parents to assert traditional values at home to counteract broader cultural shifts.
Role of Institutions in Ideological Shifts:
The discussion concluded with reflections on how institutions have been overtaken by ideologies contrary to traditional values, with a call to reclaim these spaces with sound ideas, as exemplified by the mission of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The event was framed as an important dialogue on how ideas shape society, with a call for intellectual courage and the reclamation of traditional values in the face of modern ideological challenges.
The bullshit going on right now in Canada is really off the charts. This from the C2C journal:
“The new Red Paper’s academic tone is an exception to standard aboriginal activist discourse, but it too resorts to emotional hooks. “The stakes of these struggles are immense,” the authors state on page 64. “Of course, while Indigenous land and life are the focus here, the life of our species and of the planet are at risk from the type of economic philosophy and practices of (sic) perpetuated by colonialism and settler colonialism…So the matter of land back is not merely a matter of justice, rights or ‘reconciliation’; Indigenous jurisdiction can indeed help mitigate the loss of biodiversity and climate crisis…Canada – and states generally must listen.”
Having used decolonization ideology as a springboard to investing Indigenous-led solutions with the capacity to save the world, the Red Paper portrays the nation-state as posing a barrier to such an Indigenous-led global salvation. It portrays the UN as “an organization of states that first and foremost defends the territorial integrity of sovereign states,” which “means that states are the primary vehicle to address climate change and loss of biodiversity.” And so, the paper laments on page 65, “Even while the UN recognizes the harms states perpetuate against Indigenous people (including denying consent), they cannot imagine non-state Indigenous-led solutions that may threaten the state system.”
*rolls eyes*
“The Red Paper authors appear to be suggesting that Indigenous organizations (to be determined) be given supra-jurisdictional authority. As grandiose and unrealistic as it sounds, it seems that they think aboriginal people should rule the world because they know what is best for the world and they know that because they are of the world in a way that non-Indigenous people are not; Mother Earth has given them her blessings as a birthright.
The continuing and in some ways worsening Indigenous/non-Indigenous dichotomy is a bane of humanity; it is antithetical to humanism because it presumes to determine who belongs here the most and who the least. If humanity matters most, it cannot matter who was here first. Some of the more sophisticated Indigenous exceptionalists are now staking their global campaign for jurisdiction on an issue of convenience: the fears of an existential peril – climate apocalypse – underpinned by the belief that they are somehow imbued with knowledge, skills and a force of origin that ordinary mortals do not possess. It is of course preposterous, and surely tempting to laugh off such presumption.”
Stuff like this is the end result of identity politics. Divisive and toxic for a society.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…