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

Layman’s Summary of the Court of Appeal’s Decision in R. v. Mernagh

Ontario’s Court of Appeal released its 60 page decision today in the case of R. v. Mernagh. In layman terms, the decision can be summed up as follows: Read more

Is a provincial ban on medical cannabis prescriptions the key to ending prohibition?

It may be time for Canada’s provinces to pass legislation banning medical professionals from prescribing cannabis for medical purposes. Ironically, that may be the only measure capable of stopping a federal moving target dead, and ending cannabis prohibition in Canada. Read more

Government, Libertarianism, and the Two Worlds: An Open Letter to Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette

Gentlemen:

Your December 6, 2012 discussion on The Blaze in respect of Mr. Jillette’s book “Every Day Is An Atheist Holiday” has been forwarded to me by a person who asks “How can we better expand our tent without compromising any principles?”. Having now watched your discussion with great interest, I offer you the following in the hope that you might find it helpful in your efforts to build a big tent that is actually pro-freedom. Read more

You Keep Asking, Now We Answer: Freedom Party versus Libertarian Party

The word “libertarian” is used in both a formal sense and an informal sense. When a socialist Liberal politician exclaims that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, he is called a civil “libertarian”. When a theocratic Conservative politician calls for a reduction in taxes, he too is called a “libertarian”. And when an “anarcho-capitalist” economist calls for the elimination of government, he is called a “libertarian”. So what does the word actually mean? Read more

Ontario’s Fiscal Freefall: Liberal vs. PC = Feet-first vs. Head-first

The more some things change, the more other things stay the same. The Liberal premier, finance minister, and energy minister have all announced their resignation from politics. The Liberal Party of Ontario is imploding. The province has fallen into a fiscal crisis. But Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives are doing a replay of the “we’re liberals too” campaign that left that party with opposition status in the 2011 election. Read more

Next Page »