Analysis – Ontario: 2013 by-election results versus 2011 results

The ballots have been counted in Ontario’s five provincial by-elections: London West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Scarborough-Guildwood, Windsor-Tecumseh, and Ottawa South. Pundits are telling the public what they think the 2013 by-election results – considered in isolation – mean, but I have a different analysis for you which, I think, reveals what is actually happening to the parties in Ontario. Below, I compare the results from the 2013 by-elections to the results from those ridings in 2011, each adjusted for the riding’s change in voter turnout.

The big conclusions – described in more detail after the data from the five ridings are broken down below – are these: Read more

Londoners alarmed by sudden emergence of info re: Ontario PC candidate, Ali Chahbar

{SUMMARY: Over the last 24 to 48 hours, I have received e-mails and reports from Londoners concerned about newly emerging information about Ali Chahbar, who is currently the Ontario PC candidate in the London West by-election to be held on August 1, 2013. Given the nature of this information, and the fact that there is almost no chance that the London Free Press will let voters know about it, I think it would be wrong of me not to tell Londoners what I’ve been told, before they go to the polls on August 1. A detailed report – with links to documentary evidence – follows, so that journalists and others who need fulsome evidence will have ready access to it. However, for those who need the short version, the summary is this: 
 
 

• a computer screen capture/image has just emerged of a federal Conservative database entry from 2007 listing one Ali Chahbar as being a provincial supporter of the Ontario Liberals, and as being affiliated with that party;

 

• reliable sources state that Ontario PC candidate Ali Chahbar – who has claimed to have been a life-long conservative, but who has admitted being a card-carrying federal Liberal – is not now and has never been a member of the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

• Ali Chahbar has made it his habit to point out to voters that he is married to London lawyer Rasha El-Tawil, but voters have expressed concern to me nobody has told the voting public that Ms El-Tawil is the same Rasha El-Tawil who was president of the anti-Israeli campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights while she was at the University of Western Ontario. There is concern that the voting public is not being told that, in that capacity, Ms El-Tawil and her group erected an offensive anti-Israeli “apartheid wall” at the university’s student centre in November of 2004, for which stunt the group lost its status with the university. The wall was intended to be an “effigy” of the wall erected in Israel to protect Israelis from ongoing attacks by neighbouring radicals whose mission it is to end Israel’s existence. Ms El-Tawil and her group consistently have identified Israel not only as “oppressors” of Palestinians, but have accused Israel of engaging in “genocide”.

Londoners are concerned that Mr. Chahbar’s choice to run as the PC candidate in London West are based not upon any particular sympathy for conservativism, but upon a desire to win a seat – under any party’s banner – in Ontario’s legislature where he might pursue or side with anti-Israeli policies that are frequently associated with anti-Semitic calls for boycotts on Israel, or with sympathies for (or indifference to) those who advocate the implementation of Sharia law. Given the Liberal government’s waffling on bringing Sharia within the scope of Ontario law, voters want certainty from all candidates, including Mr. Chahbar, that they reject Sharia, and that that they do not share the anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic views of Ontario’s radical leftists. This author believes that, particularly given his affiliations, Mr. Chahbar has some explaining to do, and must make it clear that he condemns the political views propounded by his spouse and others in respect of Israel and Sharia.} Read more

Why it's probably time to stop using Bell Internet…or telephone services altogether

Bell wants you to know just how worthless and obsolete their telephone services are, apparently. Just try to give Bell your money over the phone. It’s like they don’t want to be paid.

Today, I had three different Bell services that I wanted to pay for via credit card, via telephone, each with their own account number. Here is my tale. Read more

Indifference is not respect

Indifference is not respect.

Consider, as just one example, a belief in a god. If you think such a belief is arbitrary nonsense, but you think that you “respect” a person’s belief in a god, you are failing or refusing to recognize the “ought” implied by every “is”: you are separating value from fact. If you say that you do not believe in god but that you “respect” a person’s belief in a god even though you think that the person’s belief is arbitrary, you not only are lying: you are also telling the world that facts have no value to you; that truth, falsehood, and arbitrary beliefs are, to you, equally meritorious. Moreover, you are telling the world that you think it is right to treat all claims – whether they relate to a god or not – as equally valid and praiseworthy.

Ask yourself who benefits from such a practice. Read more

Are you a redian?

Are you a redian? Want to find out about the most promising political movement on the planet and its promise of communities of freedom, harmony, and abundance? Read on. Read more

Ontario Budget: Understanding Horwath's Additional "asks", and Hudak's non-participation

The pundits have spoken, and they are unanimous: Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath simply cannot take yes for an answer, and Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader Tim Hudak won’t make budget demands because he wants an election. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think those conclusions are incorrect. Here’s why. Read more

Do you vote for mobsters?

If your neighbour came over to your house with a gun, and had a cage in his basement, and said “I’m not making any money right now so hand over your wallet or else I’m locking you in the cage in my basement; and, if you resist me putting you into the cage, I’ll shoot you dead”, would you not consider your neighbour to be a criminal?

If he said that he intended to win a lot of praise and admiration by giving your money to “the children”, or “the poor”, or “the needy”, would you not still consider your neighbour to be a criminal?

If everyone on your block elected him their representative, and he demanded money on all of their behalves, threatening to put you in his holding cell, would they not have voted for a criminal?

If he and the rest of your neighbours formed a private association that went door to door demanding wallets and threatening to put people in their basement cells, would they not be an organized criminal gang?

If they registered their association as a political party and 42% of voters elected them to assume the office of government, and if they then passed laws pursuant to which you must hand over your wallet or else be locked in a prison, would the fact that they were elected change the morality of what they did to people?

Would their having been elected change their identity, such that they were no longer mobsters?

Would their passing of laws that exempted them from criminal prosecution change the morality of what they were doing? Would it change their identity, such that they were no longer mobsters?

Voting for a party that makes laws to redistribute wealth is voting for The Mob. Those who vote for for such parties are morally culpable and, arguably should be legally culpable.

Such voters are pretending that, because they voted for someone else to do their dirty work, they are not personally guilty of theft, extortion, and the like.

Such people apparently have not considered the fact that they are no different, in principle, than a person who pays a hitman or a money launderer.

Islamic Terrorism: the essential issue, the solution, and 10 Commandments for the Hero

{The following is the text of a commentary given by Paul McKeever on the April 25, 2013 episode of “Just Right” (CHRW 94.9 FM, London, Ontario). Click here to listen to an archived copy of the broadcast.}

THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE

On Monday, April 15, 2013, two Muslim men bombed the finish line of the Boston marathon killing some, and maiming many. The attack came just weeks after reports that the firebombing of an Algerian gas plant was planned or carried out by four young Muslim men from London, Ontario.

The media and our politicians have dealt with such events as though terrorism itself is the problem. Islam leads to terrorism say some. Terrorism gives a bad name to Islam say others. But is terrorism the essential issue? Or does the focus on terrorism distract from the essential issue facing North America in particular, and the world in general? Read more

Ontario Student Pride, Initiation Rituals, and Big Mother (a.k.a., Premier Kathleen Wynne)

The only “outdated” and “dangerous” aspect of a slushy slip and slide event held by engineering students at Ryerson University is the response it generated from Big Mother, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. Read more

Censorship, and the democratic 'right' not to be ignored

Bill Whatcott says that homosexuality is an “abomination”, and that homosexuals are “sex addicts” that have “sick desires”. He says that teaching children tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public schools will cause children to die early, and will subject us all to God’s wrath. The Bible tells him so, and he likes to quote it in his pamphlets opposing the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public school curricula.

A couple of days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (hereinafter referred to as the Whatcott decision). It said that if we say things that cause others to laugh at Bill and other Christians because of their Christian beliefs, the court will not allow the government to punish us. If we write things that cause others to look down their noses at Bill and his fellow Christians for their beliefs, no problem, they’ve got our backs. We can even say things that cause people to engage in an affront to the dignity of all Christians, and the court will stand on guard for thee and me. But if we say anything true or false that is likely to cause people to hate Bill and other Christians then, whether or not we intended to cause others to hate Christians, the Court will look the other way if the government gags us and punishes us. Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »