Tag Archives: CHP

CBC Misses the Big One! Again.: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
Reply

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

I could hardly believe it. Our national broadcaster (CBC) has a website which I check regularly. I know that they have an embarrassingly heavy bias on “social issues” and that their bias will be painful to experience, but I go there anyway because they do have an extensive (and expensive) network of reporters, researchers and technologies that allow them to discover and follow Canadian stories, big and small. Over the years, CBC has shown an inordinate interest in anything associated with the words “human rights”. Up until now.

On Wednesday, Feb 15, 2012, Bill C-304 passed its second reading. “What’s C-304?” you may ask. Apparently CBC (at least its online version) has not yet asked that question. Or, more likely, these news sleuths have analyzed the discussion around C-304 and don’t like it. But just because they don’t like it doesn’t normally mean they don’t cover it. In this case, CBC opinion-shapers probably have not figured out what to do with this decision. MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) tabled Bill C-304 “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)” on September 30, 2011. Two days ago, the House of Commons voted 158 to 131 to pass Bill C-304. MP Storseth’s bill would stop or reduce the constant attacks against free speech which are perpetrated and supported by the pernicious Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Under this section, good, morally-upright, common-sense Canadians have been charged and penalized for questioning things like Canada’s out-of-control immigration system and the wisdom (?) of allowing sexual perversions to dominate the education of our children.

For those keen on learning more about C-304, you may search in vain on the taxpayer-funded website of CBC. You may have to visit alternate information sources such as Roadkill Radio, ARPA Canada and SUN News. But the changes made by eliminating the oppressive and unfair Sec. 13 will benefit all Canadians and are a welcome breath of fresh air. No more will manipulative and self-serving troublemakers who populate the ranks of misguided sex activists and the crafty stealth supporters of radical Islamist Jihad groups be able to pummel law-abiding citizens with spurious taxpayer-funded accusations of “human rights violations”, merely for pointing out inconvenient facts. Forced out of the shadows, these activist will have to rely on the courts—where truth is still a defence and there are actually rules of evidence.

Since I favour cutting costs for taxpayers, I recommend that CBC-online close down one or two expensive departments lay off some of its highly-paid staff and pick up the news from ARPA, or Roadkill or No Apologies. On its front page today, CBC talks about Paul McCartney giving up pot-smoking, Sears’ price-cutting measures and the unhealthy result of eating a grossly huge hamburger. Yet the defense of Canadians’ freedom of speech by a plucky MP from Alberta received no mention. Before C-304 passes into law, CBC will figure out a spin and come out swinging (in a thoroughly-neutral, unbiased manner no doubt—wink! wink!). But for now, they seem not to have noticed that Canadians, including MPs have said “Enough!”

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are too important to leave to elite, taxpayer-funded broadcasters like CBC. I hope their radio and TV coverage has been better than their web presence but I spent so much time looking for it online I didn’t have time to turn on the tube. Everyone who cares about freedom: write to MP Brian Storseth, the PM, the Justice Minister and your own MP. Tell them to finish the job and deliver us from this evil Section 13. There may still be some sanity in Ottawa!

Dwarf-Tossing: A Canadian Dilemma: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
2

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Until just recently, I was blissfully unaware of the ethical challenges posed by “dwarf-tossing”. In fact, I was blissfully unaware that such a sport existed, in Canada or anywhere else. Part of the reason for not being up-to-date on the latest in “competitive bar sports” is that I don’t hang around bars and spend very little time following the latest weird fads on TV.

However, I was shocked to discover – as are many – that tossing little people across the room could be considered a sport. Even recognizing that these little people give permission to be tossed and make a little money at it still does not dispel the sinking feeling that somehow their dignity and personhood are being assaulted. True, many of our gladiator sports – football, hockey, boxing, wrestling – put participants at risk of physical injury. However, the idea of Big People displaying their manhood and power by throwing Little People around as a public spectacle, still leaves me feeling uneasy about the direction of our society.

But wait! It suddenly dawned on me! In this country, Big People toss Little People all the time! They do it at abortion clinics. They do it for money. And even worse, they do it without asking the Little People for permission! In the bars, after a dwarf is tossed (presuming he is not badly injured) he can get up, collect his pay and have a beer with his “tosser”. Not my idea of a fun night but hey! Whatever floats your boat…?

Not so with the 100,000 babies “tossed” each year in Canada. After being salt-poisoned or dismembered or vacuumed into fragments, these Little People are literally tossed into the trash bin.

Although they have never agreed to being tossed, never signed a contract with the abortionist, who grows wealthier with every toss, never had a chance to give their opinion – they are tossed once-and-for-all. They don’t get a second chance. They will never read a newspaper article about dwarf-tossing or abortion; nor will they ever have a chance to vote for a politician, pro-dwarf-tossing, prolife or otherwise.

A lot of things are made to be tossed: salads, grenades, parting comments over your shoulder and bad laws. But people are not a thing to be tossed – for money, pleasure or convenience.

The Poor 1% in Ottawa: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Isn’t it ironic that some of the loudest voices in Ottawa who are supposedly standing up for the rights, dignity and betterment of the poor are themselves members of the top 1% of wage collectors in the country? I speak, of course, of the NDP MPs who were swept to power last year by disillusioned voters in Quebec and other pockets across the country.

How do I figure? The top 1% of Canadians, by income, receive annual compensation of $169,000 or more. While base salary for a backbench MP is “only” $157,000, when you add in the $248,668 (!) average that taxpayers contribute each year to an MP’s pension plan (currently about $23.30 for every $1 contributed by the MP), the total compensation for the year comes to $405,668. This places the entry-level MP well above the $169,000 threshold of entry into the “1% Club”; in fact, it puts them ABOVE the average $404,000 received by others in that club, including the much-maligned CEOs of successful businesses.

Of course, the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Committee Chairs, etc. do even better. Stephen Harper, if he were to retire at the next election, would be eligible to begin receiving—at age 55—an annual pension of $223, 517. In fact all MPs—who qualify for the platinum-plated pension after a mere 6 years in Ottawa—can retire with a full pension at age 55, unlike their fellow Canadians in the private sector who put them in office. Recent discussions about the demographic and funding challenges of the Old Age Pension have many seniors and soon-to-be seniors wondering how old they will have to be before they can stop punching a time clock and settle back for a well-deserved rest…if they make it that far.

Canadians—especially those concerned about the wage discrepancies between Joe Lunchbox and the CEO of his company—should also be asking themselves whether the men and women they sent to Ottawa really have their best interests at heart. Why should government employees (MPs and other public servants) be drawing a wage and accumulating a luxurious pension so much greater than that of the hard-working, tax-paying public whom they claim to represent?

Now would be a great time for the NDP leadership hopefuls to throw their lot in with the working families they claim to love and push the government to lower the wages and perks of all MPs. The pension plan would be the place to start. Proposing dollar-per-dollar matching contributions from the MP and the taxpayer would be a noble gesture. After that, the question should be asked: why should a back-bench MP be making $157,000 per year? Most of us would be happy making $100,000. Surely the NDP leadership hopeful who suggests a reduction in MP salaries would receive a round of applause from his or her fellow MPs? After all, they are for the little guy, are they not?

Of course, Mr. Harper and his fellow Conservatives could pre-empt this action and introduce and pass legislation reducing their own salaries, their own pensions and their own perks. This would be a good will gesture, signalling Canadians that they “feel our pain” and that they are leading by example. Canadians would be much more willing to help salvage Canada’s economy if they saw this kind of servant-leadership.

I’m not holding my breath but I will be watching to see if any MP has what it takes to set a new standard of personal sacrifice for the good of the country.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

“Just the Facts, Ma’am; Just the Facts”: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

With a nod to Joe Friday, the classic characterization of a police detective from the early radio and TV show, Dragnet, I’d like to approach a few modern mysteries with the line of questioning frequently attributed to him. (Apparently the oft-quoted phrase above was a truncated version of his original “All we want are the facts, ma’am”).  It would be so refreshing if some of today’s news services (?) would remember that simple bit of advice. It seems everyone is pushing an agenda and when the “facts” can be used to support that agenda, they use them. When the facts seem to contradict the agenda’s premise, they ignore them. The really frustrating use of facts is when they are thrown in , “bait-and-switch” style to support conclusions for which they provide no real evidence.

There are many examples of this but I refer directly to the unproven theories (bandied about as facts) of the origins of life, the development of species and the periods of time during which certain deduced events are hypothetically surmised to have occurred. In a world where supposed journalistic high-achievers such as writers for the New York Times  and other widely-read papers and magazines cannot seem to agree on the origin of an individual human life, (ignoring all the medical and scientific discoveries and high-tech imaging now available) these writers and pontificators seem bound by an inner compulsion they cannot disobey to declare unequivocally that they now know—beyond a reasonable doubt—how and when a dinosaur, which no living human has ever seen, nurtured its young.

I remember as a boy being fascinated by the depictions and deductions of scientist-writers in the prestigious National Geographic. The unearthing of a few stone artifacts and bits of bone were the backdrop for detailed discussions of stone-age life. Since no photographs were available of early villages and raids or of mastodon hunts and sabre-toothed tiger depredations, these were recreated by “artist’s rendition” for the pages of NG and mingled with other stories and real photos of real people and animals living today. The quality of the photos from around the world and the credentials of the contributors lent a credibility to the theories that invited a respectful confidence in the veracity of the conclusions.

In those early days, though, the articles often included the words “may have”, “might have”, “possibly”, “some scientists believe” and other caveats that at least hinted to the reader that the latest discoveries would be supplanted by others and the latest theories were still—at best—theories. Today’s pseudo-journalist feel no such compunction. After all, Believing is Seeing! Why introduce doubt when readers, young and old alike can be persuaded to conclude that theories are proven facts and prehistoric dates of millions of years can be verified simply by reading it in a journal of record.

Just this week, January 23, 2012 to be exact (as determined by the latest radioactive dating methods) CBC News, in its online version, published details of a recent fossil find and—in a stunning show of confidence for the conclusions of the scientists who made the discovery, spouted their theories as if proven in a court of law.

“A Canadian-led team of international researchers has unearthed the 190-million-year-old nesting site of the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus — predating previously known nesting grounds by 100 million years — at an excavation site in South Africa.” This was the bold pronouncement of the CBC post. No reference to “some scientists say” or “according to some paleontologists”; the 190-million year date fixed for these particular eggs is stated as if it was recorded by a scribe whose job it was to preserve these “facts” for the benefit of 21st Century mankind. Every one knows (at least they used to know) that there are differences of opinion about the accuracy of various fossil-dating techniques. To make a categorical statement about an event presumed to have taken place 190 million years ago is to pretend that all scientists agree. That is to substitute theory for fact. It is unacceptable in a court of law and it is unacceptable in the pages of a supposed non-biased publication.

Now I want to give due credit to the amazing work of these bone-diggers. After seeing the photographic evidence I am absolutely convinced that they have made an interesting and an important find. Those are facts and I was happy to learn a little bit more about the amazing world in which we live and some of the amazing creatures that once walked upon it. But please! Every thinking reader knows that the intent of declaring unknowable and exceedingly large time frames to be facts is to try to make our universe more compatible to Darwin’s theories and our populace more willing to place its trust in unthinking evolution and random chance. To mix facts and fancy in a “scientific” story is to use propaganda tactics and to insult the intelligence of readers. It also insults the intelligence of the Intelligent Designer, the only One who knows when the mysterious Massospondylus actually laid its eggs.

People have strong feelings about the origins of the universe, the origins of life and the origins of man. The effort to induce people to subscribe to one’s pet theory by padding a few discoveries with a lot of speculation and calling it “science” is, at best , misguided and, at worst, devious. CBC, National Geographic, the New York Times, the Knowledge Network, etc. should know better than that. “All we want is the facts”.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

Run-on Sentencing: BC Court Delays Make a Mockery of Justice System: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

When things go out of control or are in short supply, long line-ups, frustration and disappointment cannot be far behind. When that which is out of control is that which is meant to restrain anarchy and retain civility, those line-ups can disintegrate into mobs and that frustration can boil over into lawlessness.

The court system in Canada is out of control and justice is in short supply. Canadians have come to expect legitimate grievances to go unresolved and heinous crimes to go unpunished. No upright citizen can feel satisfied with such a state of affairs but the bloated system crawls along and those inured to its shortcomings lament the obstinate and obvious spread of apathy and mistrust.

Take, for example, some statistics from BC. I have no doubt that the other provinces are in a similar dysfunctional state of affairs. CBC recently reported that there are at least 2,500 criminal cases in BC that have been before the courts for 18 months or more. A 2-day criminal trial will now take an average of 11.2 months to work its way through the courts. Not days, months! Judges simply gave up on 109 cases last year, staying charges rather than keep victims and accused in perpetual suspense.

My favourite statement of historical and sociological truth on this situation comes from Solomon, one of the wisest men who ever lived: “Because punishment is not administered promptly, men’s hearts become even more wicked”. Simply put, if there are no appropriate consequences and if they are not felt soon after the commission of a crime, men will continue to do worse things, expecting no retribution.

Of course, changes to our judicial system are difficult. We didn’t get here overnight. Precedent and complicated judgments arising out of sometimes convoluted interpretations of Charter rights have given rise to unreasonable expectations and a harmful focus on the rights of the accused over the rights of law-abiding citizens to enjoy safe streets, homes and schools.

However, if we are ever going to clear the backlog, institute meaningful deterrence and raise the level of citizen accountability, we will have to take steps to eliminate ridiculous excuses and painful and expensive delays.

Let’s assume for a minute that most policemen are trying to do their jobs and trying to protect the citizens in their communities. We need to thank them for it. But there are some bad cops out there and they should be brought to justice quickly, sentenced or acquitted like anyone else. I appreciate the work policemen do. But if they (or anyone) is accused of violating the trust of Canadians, exploiting their positions of authority, using gratuitous violence, then they should be suspended WITHOUT PAY, until their guilt or innocence can be established. This should not be a matter of years; perhaps a couple of months. If acquitted, they should get backpay with a modest compensation package for wrongful incarceration (perhaps twice their regular payrate and a paid ad in every provincial newspaper exonerating them. If convicted, they should be stripped of any honours and fired with no chance of return. This goes for politicians, CEOs, high-level bureaucrats, union bosses, teachers and all in any position of authority. Case in point: five police officers in Toronto are just now “going on trial” for charges dating back to 2003 and before. Their investigation alone has cost taxpayers $14 million (!) yet a couple of these men have been on “paid leave” for 4 to 8 years or more!!! This is disgusting and inexcusable.

Let’s get beyond the idea that we have to let people out on bail. Why? If they did something worthy of jail time, they should be in jail, not running around the country. Bail gives rich people an advantage over the poor who can’t afford bail. Again, if they’re found innocent, pay them twice their wage for time behind bars and make sure employers can’t fire them for being “unavailable for work”—until and unless they are convicted. But don’t postpone and delay their case for months or years. If they’re arrested on a Friday, they should be in court by the next Wednesday. Gather the evidence, call up a jury and deal with the evidence.

No probation or early release for violent offenders. If ANY criminal misbehaves while on parole / probation, the probation officer takes his place in jail until he’s recaptured (up to a maximum of two years). Once recaptured, double the sentence with NO parole.

And of course, we need to immediately throw out the twisted thinking that overlooks violent crime if the perpetrator can be proven insane. The wretched shell of a man in BC who murdered his three children, leaving their bodies for his wife to discover was given two years and is now eligible for parole. Come on! You can’t make this stuff up. The only people crazier than some of these violent criminals are the people who want to release them back into society.

There also need to be some reasonable time limits on court cases themselves—the time actually spent in court. How long does it take to review the actual evidence from a murder scene and to interview the witnesses? For all but the most complicated multiple murders, why should it take more than a week? Shoplifting? Maybe an hour or two to hear witnesses and examine the evidence.

No more casual postponement of court dates. Lawyers who can’t show up (without a doctor’s note or a cancelled flight documents) will pay the court costs for rescheduling. The accused will be there because he / she will be brought from the jail cell. If the prosecution doesn’t have its evidence and witnesses lined up and loses the case they should have won…oh well, prisoner goes free. Prosecutor gets a negative review. If there is a consistently shabby performance, prosecuting attorney is fired, tries to find work as a private lawyer.

Does all this sound simplistic or harsh? Guess what? The judicial system is supposed to administer JUSTICE and protect society. We need more common sense and less wasting of time with proceedings and judgments that fail to punish the wicked and protect the just.

Join me in calling this nation back to a realistic framework for our courts. We will not only protect the innocent from crimes against them but we will help steer young people away from a life of crime, blaming the system and failing to make good choices for a productive and happy life. We owe them a just land and just laws. Our current system is a disgrace.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

More of the Same: PM Defends Same-Sex “Marriage”: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

In spite of the expected accusations to the contrary, Stephen Harper today articulated clearly his position on the nagging issue of same-sex marriage, falling back on his recurring abortion rhetoric that “…we have no intention of reopening or opening this issue”. The mystifying aspect of his stance is that he claims that “…we had a vote on this issue”, referring to a vague request during his first year in office when—with a minority government—the hostile House was asked whether they wished to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage. The House said “no”; case closed. Really? Where is the leadership in caving in to a misguided, unreasonable and self-serving lobby after a single failed attempt to open a discussion? If Wilberforce had given up after his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th , etc. attempt, Britain might still have the slave trade.

Everyone who’s followed the debate over the years knows that the passage of same-sex marriage in 2005 was only successful because the Liberals and NDP were whipped (some before the vote and a few brave souls after). It only reached the House in the first place because of illegitimate court rulings and special treatment for that paragon of virtue, jewel thief Svend Robinson, who first introduced the bill. The indecent assault on the Charter by unelected judges set the stage, the leftist media (including taxpayer-funded CBC) violated listeners ad nauseum with their tales of sad and sorry homosexuals who “only want to live ‘normal’ lives with the same rights as everyone else” and Parliament bravely stepped up to the plate and voted against the wishes of the public who elected them. Since then, the news and entertainment media, the taxpayer funded school systems and the human rights commissions have worked hard to convince Canadians that the current status quo is what they want. Their bullying tactics have been appallingly successful and weird perversions have now become the “new normal”.

Back to the issue of political expediency and the true grit (no pun intended) required to challenge bad laws and pass good ones. Over the years, from its first iteration as the Reform Party and up through its somewhat compromised current edition, the Conservative Party as a whole, and Mr. Harper as an individual, have promised to eliminate the wasteful and repressive long-gun registry. We agree with and applaud that stance. Hold the line. Don’t flinch. Do what’s right. Fail once? Try again. What makes this issue different? After all, marriage between one man and one woman is the bedrock foundation of our Western society and social institutions. Why does this Prime Minister not have the backbone to stand up for marriages, for families and for children?

If the goal of attaining power is to simply retain power, Mr. Harper’s limp excuse for not challenging the status quo might be seen as justifiable political expediency. If, however, seeking the privilege of leading this nation is to improve the prospects for a morally-cohesive society, established on fundamental principles of justice, free speech and strengthened families, Mr. Harper’s promise to “not reopen or open the issue” is a failure of moral fibre. Of course, Mr. Harper is answering a question people aren’t asking. Reopen the debate? It was never closed.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

Losing a Battle and Winning a War: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

On Tuesday, as Iowa Republicans went to their caucus polls to weigh in officially on their choice of candidate to take on Barack Obama and his failed presidency in next November’s US Presidential election, there were two winners, Mitt Romney and rick Santorum—both as happy as clams, both grinning and confident, both giving victory speeches to the cheers of their faithful supporters.

In fact they were nearly tied at 25% of the vote but Mitt Romney was deemed the “winner” and many of his fans acted as if he had taken Iowa in a landslide. His statistically-insignificant 8-vote margin represented less than 1/100th of 1% of the 122,255 votes cast, making any claim of a Romney ”win” something less than an honest appraisal.

In fact, as has been aptly pointed out by many, the fact that Sen. Santorum came from way behind, accomplished his tie-win by working hard rather than by spending freely and seems likely to benefit from the socially-conservative voters who are poised to drift to him from the Perry and Bachman camps, his ability to come within 8 votes is not only an achievement but a miracle. Santorum visited every one of Iowa’s 99 counties, spoke to small and large crowds some 381 times and spent only about $22,000 of his own money, compared to Romney’s campaign tab of $1.47 million. This makes his “loss” look like a major victory and his heartfelt speech that night properly reflected that new dynamic.

The important thing Iowa has done is to create a clearer picture of the battles ahead. Michelle Bachman threw in the towel (she deserves credit for her hard work, her principled support for the family and her willingness to step aside when Iowa’s returns were counted); Rick Perry may yet follow her example. While any one of the nominees left on the field would be far and away better than the man now “Occupying the White House”, there are some important differences between them and Rick Santorum’s clear defense of life, family, freedom and fiscal restraint certainly deserve a close look. Now that he has shown himself “electable”, there remains little excuse for the cautious Republican moderates to limit their thinking to a foregone Romney candidacy.

While the money and hype of American presidential elections are sometimes hard to comprehend and the endless telling, retelling, analyzing and spinning can give even political enthusiasts a moment or two of doubt in the system by which one of the world’s greatest democracies chooses its leaders, it is comforting that there is room and time yet for the American people to reflect and change course. The biggest battles will come after the nomination process is complete and we can expect Obama’s Chicago team to use every dirty trick in the book. May God give His people the wisdom to sift through the hubris to understand the issues and the costs of compromise. The pain experienced during waning term of the current president should be all the evidence they need.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.