Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:
Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.
Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.
But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.
The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.
But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.
Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.
Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."
That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.
"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"
That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."
Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?