This year when Old Person Winter comes howling in, gyno-persons and transsexuals in transition will be empowered to take a stand and make their mark. Equal opportunities now exist to "write your name in the snow. ... If they really want to, the penile impaired can now do so with Whizzy, a paper device designed 'so that women can stand and urinate with ease.'" (Montreal Gazette, September 14, 1999)
At an October 26 meeting in Toronto, civil liberties lawyer Doug Christie explained that the rash of native land claims are surreptitious methods by the Canadian political establishment to do an end run around the rejection of special native status in the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. Already various tribes, through claims and counterclaims, demand over 110 per cent of British Columbia. The federal "Finance Department produced a $200-billion figure -- the worst case scenario if Canada's native communities get everything they are currently claiming in litigation and land claims. It is a staggering amount, more than Ottawa collects each year in taxes and revenues." (Globe and Mail, October 30, 1999) Those seeking to frog march Canada's still-European Majority into a collectivist New World Order have devised a two-pronged assault. In thrust one, massive Third World immigration has already irrevocably altered the major cities: in Toronto, last year, Europeans slipped into minority status. In the second thrust, native land claims will turn over billions of dollars in entitlements and prize farm land, fisheries and resources in the hinterland on a purely racial basis to handfuls of natives
In September, Canada's unelected gang of judicial social engineers, the Supreme Court, decided that Donald Marshall, a Micmac Indian, was entitled to fish for eels out of season. What might have seemed like an obscure ruling that once again affirmed that all Canadians are equal, but special minorities are more privileged than the rest, soon exploded. Report Magazine (October 25, 1999) noted: "Inevitably, the court-ordered expansion and invention of Indian rights involves the sacrifice of other Canadians' rights. The lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia who saw the Supreme Court effectively hand over their livelihoods to the Micmacs in the Marshall ruling... understand this sacrifice more acutely than most. But it is also well understood by the people who own about 75 houses built on land leased from the Musqueam Indian band in Vancouver. They have seen their self-governing landlords, backed by a Federal Court ruling, impose massive increases in the annual rents on their 99-year leases, and they have been told by the federal minister of Indian Affairs that, if they fail to pay back rent and taxes totalling as much as $112,000, they will be forcibly evicted from their homes on October 25."
In remarks in the House of Commons, Reform Party leader Preston Manning criticized the Supreme Court for having "affirmed an aboriginal fishing right from a treaty that does not contain the word fish Talk about writing things in; that is a good example." (Globe and Mail, October 16, 1999) Writing in the same issue, columnist William Thorsell noted: "Judge [Beverley McLachlin (supported by Mr. Justice Charles Gonthier) was obviously appalled by the willingness of her colleagues to extrapolate aggressively from a 1760 peace treaty between the British Governor and the Micmac Indians. One line in the treaty referred to future trading relationships between the Crown and the aboriginals. The Micmac chief stated: 'And I do further engage that we will not traffick, barter or Exchange any Commodities in any manner but with such persons or the managers of such truck houses as shall be Established by His Majesty's Governor in Nova Scotia or Acadia.' The Micmacs agreed to trade only with the Crown as one condition of peace. The majority of the court decided that this restriction on the right to trade carried within it a general treaty right to fish, hunt and gather in 1999, to the point of making a moderate living. The court's intellectual journey from trade in 1760 to trapping in 1999 requires long, elastic rationalizations. ... Here is what Judge McLachlin said so forcefully in her dissent: 'Referring to the <right> in the generalized abstraction risks both circumventing the parties' common intention at the time the treaty was signed, and functioning illegitimately to create, in effect, an unintended right of broad and undefined scope.'"
According to one of the authorities cited by Mr. Justice Ian Binnie in his majority ruling, the Court deliberately misread or selectively quoted his testimony. "A New Brunswick historian and specialist on native treaties has accused a Supreme Court of Canada justice of 'seriously distorting' his expert testimony in the high court's landmark ruling on native fishing. Dr. Stephen Patterson, a professor of North American colonial history at the University of New Brunswick, said Justice Ian Binnie, in writing the majority decision, used 'selective evidence' from him to buttress the Supreme Court ruling that gave East Coast natives the right to fish year around without licences. ... He said Judge Binnie failed to mention that he also testified that the Micmac and British signed the treaties with the clear understanding that natives would be subject to the laws of the Crown, just like everybody else. 'The contextual evidence shows that the native and governing officials actually discussed this issue of law and the application of law and were of one mind on the subject. The natives agreed that we are going to live under your laws and the British kept stressing that is what this is all about. All of those things were put into words. It is not something you have to make up. You don't have to imply it. It is all there in black and white.'" (National Post, October 28, 1999)
The only thing preventing people from relishing wine-in-a-box is the irksome shelf life of fine old wines. The obvious solution? Discredit the pesky vintage stuff and dump it down the drain. As Ian Hunter observes, Canada has become that kind of country: "a country where boatloads of illegal migrants wash ashore without exciting any government action or even much public concern. A one-party state where the most significant decisions are taken not by the political oligarchy but by unelected judges. ... Where the Queen's representative is chosen from among the chattering classes who are congenitally hostile to monarchical government. Where the minister of finance during an election campaign can say: 'Canadians don't want lower taxes; Canadians like to pay taxes,' and not only get re-elected but become the heir apparent. A country where the RCMP does not enforce the law on Indian reserves, and the Toronto police do not enforce the law in gay bars. Where the Armed Forces are more concerned about designer uniforms for pregnant soldiers than about fighting. A country where high taxes and a low dollar are a winning political combination. ... Perhaps a combination of welfarism and rights rhetoric would reduce any population to Canada's catatonic state. But I doubt it. I think that infantile regression is the holy grail that Canadian nationalists have sought for so long. ... In Western Report, Link Byfield got it right when he wrote: 'This incapacity to distinguish between real issues and non-issues bodes ill for our democracy. But our governing class encourages it, because it leaves them a much freer hand to order things as they like.'" (National Post, September 30, 1999)
"Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott believes the United States may not exist in its current form in the 21st Century -- because nationhood throughout the world will become obsolete! Talbott, who is profiled in the New York Times on Monday [for the second time in six months], has defined, shaped and executed the Clinton administration's foreign policy. He has served at the State Department since the first day of the Clinton presidency.
Just before joining the administration, Talbott wrote in Time magazine -- in an essay titled 'The Birth of the Global Nation' -- that he is looking forward to government run by 'one global authority. Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail ... within the next hundred years ... nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority,' Talbott declared in the July 20, 1992 issue of Time. 'A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- <citizen of the world> -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.' Talbott continued: 'All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.' Talbott's belief that the United States of America and other nations are 'artificial and temporary' continues to cause a rift inside of the State Department, the Drudge Report has learned. 'I think we are losing sight that we work for the American taxpayer, not Russia, not Asia," one State Department veteran told the Drudge Report in Washington. "Mr. Talbott is completely consumed with world order and has alienated many career employees here. [His] attitude borders on obsession.' In recent months, Talbott has come under fire for his stand on Russia. The policy of financial and political engagement with Russia as revelations pour forth of massive money-laundering schemes has made Talbott the target of critics, reports John Broder at the Times. 'We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose,' Talbott tells Monday's New York Times. 'One of my modest suggestions to the world is strategic patience. We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose when that dynamic is discouraging, as it is today,' Talbott tells the Times. Global government has proven to be slightly more complicated than one optimist dreamed." (Drudge Report, September 26, 1999)
"Canada's military spent about $148 million on the Kosovo mission. ... Most of the expense, just over $127 million, comes from the air campaign between March and mid-August. (CBC Newsworld, September 16, 1999) Sadly, "a new report says NATO's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia wasn't as successful as officials led everyone to believe. The magazine U.S. News and World Report quotes NATO officials who say bombs destroyed only 26 of 900 targets in Serbia. ... NATO's miscalculation resulted in the deaths of thousands and created more than 1.5 million refugees." (CBC Newsworld, September 12, 1999) Sillier still, "Canadians who voyaged to the Balkans this year to enlist in the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army [or Serb forces] will not face criminal prosecution, the RCMP announced yesterday. ... Last spring the RCMP requested the Solicitor-General to review whether their actions violated Canadian law. In particular, police wanted to know if the volunteers had violated Criminal Code sections on treason as well as the Foreign Enlistment Act, which makes it illegal for Canadians to fight against fellow Canadians in a war. ... The enlistment act did not apply because there was no official declaration of war in Kosovo, and there were also insufficient grounds to justify charges of treason." (National Post, October 26, 1999) Nice precedent. As we routinely send Canada's demoralized military to every jerkwater hotspot going, they can spend leisure hours calculating what percentage of their opponents carry Canadian passports. Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
An old piece of perceptive folk wisdom, when we were still encouraged to listen to our folk rather than theirs, had it: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Canada, being reshaped by social engineering unelected judges, now has redefined a family to any Tom, Dick or Harry instead of Bob and Mary, and is now morally adrift, so befuddled so that, at least officially, we don't know our rear ends from the proverbial hole in the ground. A sign of the times: On August 14, in Toronto, "upwards of 2,000 people paid $25 ($30 at the door) to get into a popular downtown nightclub where 'special feature performers' had been advertised. ... The occasion was the 5th annual Leather Ball, an event put on by, and for, the gay community. ... Partygoers were questioned at the door before they were allowed to go inside ... 'Are you an undercover police officer?' ... While there are slightly different versions of the order in which the events occurred, the witnesses all seem to agree that unprotected anal sex subsequently took place between the two men [on stage]. ... There was use of dildos and some 'fisting.' ... One guest insists a different appendage was used in this case, so the more apt description might actually be 'footing.' ... One of the performers supposedly had a string dangling between his buttocks which he pulled on to reveal the purple Teletubby 'Tinky-Winky,' whose tiny purse had so enraged the Rev. Jerry Falwell. The toy was held aloft before being twirled in the air and tossed out to the audience." (Heather Bird, Toronto Sun, September 10, 1999)
The Chilcotin War is yet another forgotten episode in Canadian history, described as "a B.C. version of General George Custer's Battle of the Little Big Horn. ... The war broke out in the spring of 1864, when native bands living on the remote, majestic Chilcotin plateau in central B.C. took up arms to protect their ancestral land against white encroachment. The violent skirmishes, which left more than 20 non-natives dead, including 14 in one decisive battle, represent one of the few Indian wars in 19th century Canada, and the only one in British Columbia. ... Five chiefs of the Tsilhqot'in nation were hanged -- at the same time -- in the dusty, frontier town of Quesnel, 700 kilometres north of [Vancouver]. ... Yesterday, in a telling recognition of how perceptions change, government dignitaries and members of the RCMP took part in an emotional ceremony honouring the chiefs for giving their lives trying to protect their ancestral territory." (Globe and Mail, October 27, 1999) But doesn't the government of Canada still have special punishments in reserve for those of us who presume to protect our ancestral lands from foreign encroachment?