Blue Like You

Archive for September 17th, 2007

…by one of the greatest con-artists spin-doctors of all time.

But at least one Ontario resident sees through the smokescreen:

Jerrold Landau of Toronto writes to the National Post:

It is bizarre that 43% of Ontario voters would identify the funding of faith-based schools as one of their top three election issues. All three parties support continuing public funding for the 93% of Ontario’s faith-based schools that are already fully publicly funded — i.e. Catholic schools. Providing an opportunity to the other 7% to enter the public education system and receive funding equal to Catholic schools is not a big change.

What we are seeing here is a significant number of Ontario voters falling for a politically opportunistic and hypocritical attempt by Premier McGuinty to turn a small issue into something bigger in an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues. Ironically, McGuinty himself is the product of publicly funded Catholic faith-based schools and chose to send his children there also.

Ah, very well said, Grasshopper!

And Record columnist Luisa D’Almato would likely agree with you:

McGuinty, whose children enjoyed a free Catholic education, is too busy insulting those who request the same treatment to actually listen to them. He calls their requests divisive and says funding religious schools would “segregate” our society.

(How’s that? A Jewish school is deemed “segregated,” but not a Catholic school? Do I detect a whiff of a double standard here?)

As for our local candidates, I listened in astonishment the other night at a Kitchener Centre debate when the usually thoughtful Liberal MPP John Milloy gave a flat, arrogant answer, completely unworthy of him, about funding faith-based schools. “I am opposed to it and the Liberal party is opposed to it,” he said.

Well, then. Thanks for that clarification, John.

“Kitchener-Waterloo Liberal candidate Louise Ervin, a respected Catholic school trustee, told me years ago that her colleagues across Ontario supported other faith groups who wanted the same rights. “How can we say, ‘Support the Catholic system, but don’t support the Mennonite schools or the Jewish schools? We can’t say, ‘Only me,’ ” she said, very reasonably, in 1995.

Now Ervin appears to have changed her tune:

This week she said the Catholic trustees had only meant to support other groups getting funding if it didn’t take money out of the public or Catholic systems.

That sounds like a Liberal version of NIMBY. How Christian!

Anyway, that claim remains to be proven.

D’Almato recommends that a multi-party task force be struck to try to learn from other provinces how a fairer funding system could be accomplished. She wonders why this issue can’t even be discussed?

Maybe it’s the new abortion.

Anyway, if you’re getting sick and tired of hearing all the gaseous emissions from the various leaders, take a break and check out Clive’s post.

I guarantee at least a smile. Maybe even a laugh.

Unless you’re a Liberal. Or Catholic.

Tonight I received a tip from a fellow blogger that Jonathan Kay had posted a piece about Caledonia on Full Comment.

I had been planning to take a break from this frustrating subject for a while, but Kay’s piece is worth considering before I pack it in for the night.

Jonathan Kay also feels that Caledonia could become the most important issue of this election.

…Yet none of the three major candidates are discussing what may be the most important issue facing the province: the ongoing, violent flouting of the rule of law by native protestors in and near the town of Caledonia. The fact that the province’s police have consistently refused to take decisive action against the protestors since their illegal activity began in February, 2006 is a significant scandal, one that has sent the message that Mr. McGuinty’s government is either unwilling or unable to maintain the basic rule of law…

This is what I’ve been trying to say this whole past week - If we have anarchy going on, what’s the point of worrying about our schools and health system? To me, law and order comes first. The rest follows.

But native thugs have proclaimed that anyone working in the area must get their approval (i.e., pay protection money) first. As in all situations where a central authority refuses to apply the rule of law, mafia-like groups have rushed in to the vacuum and proclaimed themselves a law unto themselves.

Six Nations has decreed that anyone planning to build in the Brant-Haldimand tract has to pay for permits from the SN. If not, there will be repercussions.

The bottom line is that a group of hooligans is openly flouting the government - and Mr. McGuinty has done nothing about it except attempt to shift blame onto Ottawa. Some Ontarians apparently are allowed to break the Trespass to Property Act and the Criminal Code whenever they please - simply because of the colour of their skin. It is an ongoing embarrassment to Mr. McGuinty’s government, even if most of the media have grown tired of covering it.

However, Kay doesn’t let John Tory off the hook either. He ridicules Tory’s suggestion that civil actions be brought against native law-breakers:

Civil actions? That sounds a lot like what the original property owner did in early 2006 when native protestors first squatted on the Douglas Creek Estates. He obtained an injunction ordering the protestors off the land. When the Sheriff delivered it, one of the protestors burned the document, an action that was broadcast on TV.

Yeah, well, thanks Jonathan. You’re probably right. And you’ve just shot down any hope we have here for some of resolution.

When stark reality stares you straight in the face, it’s tough to shrug it off.

Christian Conservative spells out the cold facts.

Well, MSM and the blogosphere are rife with speculation about today’s Quebec byelections. Even a few brave souls at Liblogs are venturing forward to share their thoughts.

Please feel free to weigh in here. It should be quite the ride.