Your Singhs today (Brampton edition)

Further to yesterday's post about the great success of Peel Regional Police's Project Ghost, we can report that the Peelers have arrested the man who made death threats against Brampton ON mayor Patrick Brown, the existence of which was revealed at the same time as the cops were crowing about their great victory in the war with the Sikh criminals who intest the Greater Toronto area. 

[How many times do I have to warn you about run-on sentences? Ed.

An editor is only a mouse in training to be a rat. Walt]

Regular readers will not be surprised to learn that the man whose collar has been felt is 29-year-old Kanwarjyot Singh Manoria, a resident of Brampton.  He is charged with uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm. 

A source familiar with the investigation previously told CP24 that the threat was made via email to the mayor's office two to three weeks ago, and that his wife and son were also mentioned. A security detail was deployed to protect Brown’s home and family over the course of two weeks following the threat.

Mr Singh Manoria was arrested following the execution of search warrants and the seizure of electronic devices. "At this time, investigators believe the individual acted alone and is no longer an active threat to the mayor, his family or the community," police said on Wednesday.

Mr Singh Manoria was held in custody pending the customary and politically correct release on bail.

VIDEO: Pierre Poilievre talks about old wood (???) - a message for freedom-loving conservatives everywhere

For those readers, especially Americans, who don't follow Canadian politics [Why would they? Ed.], let me bring you up to speed. By comparison with the Excited States, Canada is a pretty laid-back... or just plain dull... country. And Canucks like it that way. They generally elect governments which are either slightly to the left or (occasionally) slightly to the right of centre. There hasn't been a really conservative Conservative federal government since Adam was a little boy.

It has therefore come as a shock to the liberal Laurentian establishment that someone who sounds like a conservaative-cum-populist, in the mould of Donald Trump, looks like becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and, quite possibly, the next prime minister of Canuckistan.

That someone is Pierre Poilievre, about whom I've written before. Mr Poilievre is not truly a social conservative like Leslyn Lewis, the dark horse on the right. He has refused to grasp the nettles of the abortion, gay "marriage" and critical race theory issues. See "More on Poilievre and Lewis + Brown", WWW 2/5/22.

He has, however, championed the cause of freedom from Big Government, associating himself with the leaders of last winter's Freedom Convoy, and condemning Emperor Justin's use of emergency powers to impose vaccine and other mandates on the Canadian sheeple.

In so doing, he distances himself from Jean Charest -- the last of the Red Tories -- and Patrick Brown, the puppet of the World Sikh Organization of Canada. [The link is for those who think Walt is making this up. Ed.] This week the CPC disqualified Mr Brown for violating was campaign rules and (possibly) the Elections Act. 

That leaves John James Charest (his real name) as the only serious (?) candidate of the old "Conservative" establishment, with the likely outcome of September's vote being the coronation of Lucky Pierre. But M Poilievre isn't taking a landslide win for granted. His team has just released a clever and skillfully made video, in which he waxes poetic over some old planks. What does this have to do with conservative values? Check it out.  

 

For those who didn't or couldn't watch the video, here's a synopsis. Mr Poilievre at home in Ottawa admiring a wooden post he recovered from an old barn and used in a DIY project. Early lumberjacks hewed it from logs, he says, leaving the scars of their axes as evidence of their labour. Then he turns to the planks on the wall. He bought them from a farmer, and spent hours cleaning and restoring them. 

Why? Because they tell a story about the people who fashioned them and the elements that weathered them. All he did, he says, was to reclaim what was already there in the wood. And reclaiming Canadians' lost freedom is what his campaign is about. That's his message.

Liberals, he explains, have been trying to build a kind of utopia, knocking down statues, sweeping away history and banning words as they go. This is nothing but a pretext to give themselves "vast new powers," which they've been trying to do all through the past seven years of Liberal government.

"Reclaim your life," he concludes. "Reclaim your freedom!" That's a powerful message -- a challenge which ought to resonate with not just the sheeplike Canucks, but with Americans, Britons and lovers of freedom throughout the western world. Walt says, "Right on!"

More on Poilievre + Lewis and Brown

Walt has had some adverse comments (on Disqus) to "The problem with Poilievre", WWW 30/4/22. Seems like a lot of Canadian conservatives (with and without a big C) are jumping on the "Poilievre for Prime Minister" bandwagon. He's drawing huge crowds -- in the 1000s -- wherever he goes, in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada leadership vote is months away, and that it's only a contest to choose a new leader, with no election in the offing until 2025.

What seems to be surprising the lickspittle Canuck meeja is the large numbers of young people -- teens and twenty-somethings -- turning out to hear PP. Agent 3, who's closer to the action than I am, says Mr Poilievre is tapping into the massive, frustrated energies of a disillusioned electorate that has dismissed the idea that there is some duty to vote. For them, it's like being told you have a duty to buy a new car, and then offered a choice between a Chev and a Ford. [This should not be taken as a comment on the impending Ontario election. Ed.]

The secret of attracting and turning on a crowd is getting turned on by the crowd. Pierre Poilievre is the only candidate for the Tory leadership who seems to understand this. He's the only one who can connect with people on some kind of visceral, instinctive level that is both above and below "traditional politics" In this he resembles... wait for it... President Donald J. Trump.

That's great, but the nub of the Poilievre Problem, IMHO, is that in reality he's just another good, big-C Conservative, more interested in power than in principle. The Conservative Party of Canada is an atavistic entity, hopelessly old-fashioned, still trying to be all things to all people, the Natural Alternative to the Natural Governing (read: Liberal) Party. There is no hope of beating the Liberals, let alone accomplishing anythning genuinely new or different in Canadian politics, until the Conservative Party is put out of its self-inflicted misery.

Before I run out of space [again. Ed.] let's take a look at the leader wannabes trailing Mr Poilievre and his not-too-close competitor, Jean Charest.

With just over 3% support in recent polling, Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton ON, is in fourth place. For Mr Brown, this is a grudge match. He was elected as a Conservative Member of Parliament in 2006, and, seeing no future on the Harper back benches, jumped into Ontario provincial politics in 2014, and was elected leader of the oxymoronically named Progressie Conservative Party of Ontario in 2015.

Under Mr Brown's leadership the PCs won five by-elections, and seemed poised for success. But the shithammer struck early in 2018 when he was me-tooed by two women, dating back to the time he was a federal MP. Brown denied the allegations and initially refused to step down, but you know how it goes these days. Canada's CTV admitted, in March of this year, that there were "innacuracies" in its report, and, errr, the two women weren't under age after all. 

But the damage had been done. Mr Brown was booted out of the PC caucus and quit provincial politics for the brownfields of Brampton where he landed with him bum in the butter, elected Mayor in October of 2018. To understand how that happened, just look at the picture at left.

All ye need to know about Brampton is that Canadians of European descent account for about 25% of the population. Another 20% or so are black, but are to busy with other pursuits [word chosen carefully. Ed.] to bother with politics.

The majority of Bramptonians are from south Asia, and the majority of those are Sikhs. All you  have to do get elected in Brampton (as a whitey) is get yourself declared an honorary Sikh, turn up for the Khalsa day parade, support an "independent Khalistan", etc, and you're in like Flynn Singh. 

Works in Toronto too, and since Patrick Brown is the only leadership candidate from the GTA, he seems to be counting on the BIPOC vote to see him in the Leader's chair. Walt gives him two chances....

Slightly ahead of Mr Brown in the early polling is Leslyn Lewis, the only woman and the only person of colour in the field. I didn't go for the cheap "dark horse" joke, because Ms Lewis deserves to be taken seriously. She is the the favourite of the social conservative wing up the party, and -- unlike Messrs Charest and Brown -- is a Member of Parliament, representing the southwestern Ontario riding of  Haldimand-Norfolk. Getting elected as a black woman in white-bread country is an achievement in itself.

Last week, Ms Lewis released two major platform updates. In "No Hidden Agenda", posted on her campaign website, she writes:  "I am pro-life. I am not ashamed to say it.... These are issues that concern us all. When we are afraid of talking about important topics, we don't do anything to improve life for Canadian women. That’s why I put forward a 'no hidden agenda' platform on abortion in the 2020 race. I stand by those policies and would put forward the same four if elected leader now."

Her platform reads as follows: "I will fight for the value of every girl through banning the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortions. I will protect vulnerable women by criminalizing coerced abortions. I will increase funding for pregnancy centres. And I will end abortion funding overseas and focus Canadian funding on actually helping women and girls overseas thrive."

Leslyn Lewis stands on principle. Walt says, good for you and God bless you! Mind you, her chances of winning the CPC leadership are not much better than those of Patrick Brown. But if you call yourself a social conservative, and eligible to vote in the Conservative leadership, you should vote for her!

Here's why. Pierre Poilievre is the acknowledged front-runner in the race, and lots of people will vote for him because they think (mistakenly) that he's a true conservative. Patrick Brown is a liberal, a "progressive consesrvative", even more so than Jean Charest. Every vote for Leslyn Lewis will come off Mr Poilievre's pile. If Mr Brown fizzles, as seems likely, and if Ms Lewis runs a good third, Jean Charest might just squeak through.

But (Walt hears you say) hang on! Is that what you want? Do you want another pinko leading the alt-liberal party? Answer: YES, because this time real conservatives like Ms Lewis (and maybe even Mr Poilievre) should realize the truth of what I wrote above about the CPC, and quit the Party. 

They might even join Max Bernier's People's Party of Canada, to offer a real choice to fed-up Canucks in 2025. That would be my strategy. If you have a better suggestion, do click on the headline to open the comments window, and let us hear about it!

VIDEO: Please help find a cure for little Justin's problem

I know, I know... WWW has had a lot of stuff about Canadian politics lately. Like there's nothing going on in American politics? Like anybody cares about Canada? Really though, things are heating up in the Great No-longer-white North. Canucks are fed up, not just with winter but with their Liberal leaders in both Ottawa (the country's capital) and Toronto (the city that thinks it's the country's capital... or maybe the country itself, since TROC doesn't matter.)

In Ontario, a provincial election is due in June. In anticipation thereof, the province's oxymoronic Progressive Conservatives have fallen into their traditional trap of forming a circular firing squad. There is now a fifth candidate in their unexpected leadership contest (see previous posts on Tanya Granic Allen), none other than Patrick Brown, who just got turfed out of the leadership, a victim of #MeToo, but has now been okayed to throw his batter chapeau back in the ring.

Meanwhile, alleged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been touring India, with his ultra-photogenic family in tow, all decked out in native costumes which the Indian meeja say are waaay over the top -- too Indian even for Indians. See "Trudeau family criticized for overdoing it on their traditional Indian outfits" (Global News, 21/2/18) and try not to gag at the pix of a white man gone native.

Worse for Hairboy are the stories, which contain more than a grain of truth, that he is sympathetic to Sikh separatists who are fighting to turn the Punjab into an independent homeland, which they call "Kalistan". Thanks to Trudeaus I and II, there are hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in Canada, huddled together in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver, from which they send lakhs of rupees back to India to fund the separatist cause.

They also turn out reliably to vote Liberal. There are four of them in Junior's cabinet, all of whom accompanied him on his visit to their Golden Temple at Amritsar. Another one, Jaspal Singh Atwal, has joined the group and was invited to a reception to be held by the Canadian High Commissioner to India, my good Mister Patel. One of Walt's favourite pundits, Terry Milewski, revealed yesterday that Mr Atwal was convicted of the attempted murder of Malkiat Singh Sidhu, another Sikh who was also an Indian cabinet minister, on Vancouver Island in 1986. How embarrassing! Mr Atwal has now been officially uninvited.

It becomes more evident every day that Justin Trudeau has problems. Jill Colton, a former lamestream media personality with a degree in communications and a diploma in broadcast journalism, now doing commentary on You Tube, has got to the root of Junior's personality disorder, and is starting a campaign to get some professional help for him. Here's her pitch.



Walt has only one thing to add... for now.

Doug Ford calls out Ontario PCs on pro-queer sex ed curriculum

Cazart! Even as I was writing "Ontario conservatives! Vote Tanya Granic Allen for PC party leader" earlier today, Ontario Progressive Conservative [sic] leader wannabe Doug Ford was getting up on his hind feet at Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School, on his own turf in northwest Toronto, to call out not just Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government but his own party for the current state of education in the Province of Missed Opportunity.

For those who don't know, Doug Ford is the little brother -- perhaps "younger brother" would be a better phrase -- of the late Rob Ford, the crack-smoking and otherwise controversial mayor of Toronto, 2010-2014. That's Doug on the right, which is where he likes to be. My guess is that the announcement by Tanya Granic Allen that she was throwing her hat in the leadership ring (see previous post) served to warn Mr Ford that he was in danger of losing the social conservative vote -- there's a lot of them out there -- unless he spoke out against his party's liberal policies on matters such as abortion and sex education.

On the latter subject, Mr Ford said both the Liberals and PCs are to blame for the current unsatisfactory state of education in Ontario. "Educating our children is the most important job in the world," he said. "The next generation will inform how our country develops and contributes to issues facing society. Ontario needs to be a leader in the quality of education we give our children. This means that we need to arm our teachers with comprehensive and practical curriculum documents."

"The way the sex-ed curriculum was rolled out was totally unacceptable. Consultations with parents were insufficient. Unlike the Liberals, I know that parents -- not the government -- are our first educators when it comes to our children." Did you catch that play? "First educators"! That's the name of Mrs Granic Allen's group -- Parents As First Educators.

The Liberals' new sex education curriculum was implemented in classrooms in September 2015. In accordance with the pro-queer agenda favoured by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne (a lesbian herself), they start laying the gender ideology on Grade 3 students -- that's age 8 -- to get the kiddos to "accept differences". Students start learning about puberty in Grade 4, a year earlier than before. In Grade 6, when kids are 11, they are introduced to masturbation, which teachers were urged to describe as a "common practice". Then, in Grades 7 and 8, students are taught about consent, practising abstinence, and... wait for it... anal sex. In Grade 8. Can you imagine?

1000s of Ontario parents took to the streets around the Pink Palace to protest. But it was too late. The new curriculum was presented as a fait accompli. Parents weren't consulted beforehand, and certainly wouldn't be listened to after the curriculum -- the handiwork of a convicted pedophile, (((Dr Benjamin Levin))) -- was rolled out.

It's the kind of deviltry that is hard to undo. And unlike Mrs Granic Allen, Doug Ford didn't flat out promise to scrap it. He said the sex-ed curriculum should be about facts, not teaching "liberal ideology". But would he undo it? Well... errr... what he said was "If I’m elected leader, I will take this issue to the party, to parents and to the voters. I will remain firm on this issue. I will always stand for parents having the first say in what their children learn."

Mr Ford blamed not just the Liberals but his own party. "The Liberals have refused their insight, feedback and expertise by not consulting with families on changes to Ontario's sex-ed curriculum," he said. "But the Liberals have not been the only ones who have turned a blind eye to the concerns of parents. Our own PC party, under Patrick Brown, refused to even consult its own members on what we thought of this curriculum and stonewalled debate of the issue by forbidding discussion of this policy from reaching the membership during our policy development process."

Mr Ford was obviously trying to position himself to the right of the other two "serious candidates" for the PC leadership. Former MPP Christine Elliott said parents were "shut out" during the brief and fraudulent "consultation" held in 2014, but she hasn't said what, if anything, she would do about it. The third candidate, Caroline Mulroney (daughter of Lyin' Brian Himself) has said she will "revisit" the sex education curriculum. Only Tanya Granic Allen has had the courage to say she is against it.

Dear Ontario readers, it's the entry of Mrs Granic Allen into the race that has forced the "serious candidates" to say something. This proves that if right-thinking people are both vociferous and persistent, they can make themselves heard and, please God, put a brake on the runaway liberal freight train. Join the protest! Scroll down to my earlier post, and follow the link to register today for your membership in the Ontario PC party, so you can support Tanya Granic Allen. The membership deadline is February 16th, so do it now!

Ontario conservatives! Vote Tanya Granic Allen for PC party leader

Walt finds it easy to make fun Canadian Conservatives (with a big "C") because the majority of them are so close to the centre of the political spectrum as to be virtually indistinguishable from the centrist "blue Liberals". They believe in statism, progressivism, secular humanism, and government intervention is just about every aspect of life. Nowhere is this more true than in Ontario, where the alternative to Kathleen Wynne's detestable and detested Liberal government is a party that calls itself "Progressive Conservative" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one.

When the Regressive Convertibles (as the late Dr Foth used to call them) chose a new leader, Patrick Brown, a couple of years ago, there were some social conservatives who hoped that the PCs (as they call themselves) would dare to embrace Christian family values, particularly as regards the Wynne government's pro-queer agenda, particularly their proposed new sex education curriculum, about which Walt has written before. See, for example, "Liberal government of Ontario plans further attack on parental rights", WWW 27/2/17.

It was not to be. Patrick Brown flip-flopped on the sex ed issue like a beached mackerel. During one by-election, a letter was sent out over his name saying he was against the new curriculum. Mere hours later he said he was for it, and the letter had been sent out "by mistake". He then became an enthusiastic supporter of the lesbian premier's agenda, when he said, "I strongly support the updated sex-ed curriculum. I will never support removing LGBT sensitivity or combating homophobia from schools." How's that for "progressive conservatism"?

With Patrick Brown, there was no room for social conservatives -- or sanity -- in the Ontario PC party. But Patrick Brown is gone now, a victim of #MeToo. And the PCs are scrambling to find a new leader. There are three candidates, none of whom has said flatly that he or she (there are two women, one man, running) will listen to social conservatives, let alone be a strong voice for family values and the importance of life.

So... Tanya Granic Allen has stepped forward. Mrs Granic Allen is the President of Parents As First Educators, and, as mentioned in the post referred to above, has been in the forefront of the campaign to stop Kathleen Wynne and all her works. Late last week, Mrs Granic Allen announced that she would enter the contest for the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, if she can muster up the votes and the funds needed to do so.

Can Tanya Granic Allen win? Frankly, Walt doesn't think so, but that's not the point. The point is to show the "serious candidates" that there is significant support out there -- by which I mean outside of Toronto, the fons et origio of all that is evil -- for true conservative principles and the Christian values on which Western society was built.

You can help! The first thing you need to do -- by 5 PM EST this coming Friday, February 16th -- is become a member of the party. You need to be: (a) a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, (b) living in Ontario, and (c) 14 years of age or older. That's all. It costs just $10 to join, and you can do it online, at secure.ontariopc.com/Partyjoin. (Please leave the window asking who referred you blank!

If you need help getting your member, leave a phone message at 416-763-7233, and someone will call you back and help you to register. Once you've registered, please e-mail tanya@pafe.ca to let her know you've done so. Very soon, you'll receive more information about how you can vote. You don't need to attend a convention or any party meetings. Voting is going to be online and/or by snail-mail. (How's that for conservative?)

Then there's the money. The entrance fee for the race is $100,000. Until Mrs Granic Allen is officially registered as a candidate, donations aren't tax-deductible, but they are very necessary! If you can help, please say so in your e-mail, and once a campaign account is set up, Tanya's team will let you know.

If you live in Ontario and share the values and ideals that motivate Tanya, Walt urges you to get your membership in the PC party and lend her your support. Remember, the membership deadline is Friday, February 16th, at 5 PM EST! You don't even have to get out of your chair, but please act now!

Still thinking about it? Here's a very short (1:50) video of Dr Jordan Peterson talking with Tanya and one of Walt's favourite conservative activists, Queenie Yu, about gender ideology.



Click here for more videos and information on Tanya Granic Allen and Parents As First Educators.

Note from Ed.: The foregoing endorsement was unsolicited and unapproved by Tanya Granic Allen. Walt has received no consideration for posting this... no consideration whatever... damn!

Why sticking our noses in the affairs of the Third World is a bad idea

Since it's Sunday morning [early too! Ed.] I'll start with a text. This is from the chapter entitled "Recovery", in Butterfly Mind, by Patrick Brown (Anansi 2008). (More about the author and the book later.)

Intervention almost never works out as predicted, and it is almost never executed with sufficient thoroughness and commitment. The decision to intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or because a regime has become intolerable, are often made haphazardly, and the results almost always are disappointing. Those decision deserve care and attention proportional the blood and treasure lost when bad decisions are made.

I have been in Afghanistan many times since the Taliban left. I have watched a growing number of foreign nation-builders and peacekeepers lose their lives in the dusty hills of a country that once again produces 90 percent of the world's heroin.

NATO countries that are still willing to provide troops insist on à la carte deployment, picking and choosing where their forces are deployed and what they do. Countries that have put their troops in harm's way, like Canada and Britain, are naively stirring up a hornet's nest. Pacifying Afghanistan and improving its living standards rapidly would have taken much larger numbers of well-equipped troops, and an intensive and expensive development effort.

Those words were written in 2008, before the US-led "intervention" in Afghanistan had officially failed, yet the author refers to it (in the last quoted sentence) in the conditional past -- "would have taken". The conditions for success were never met, perhaps never could have been met. Six years after Patrick Brown wrote those words, even the greatest apologists for Obama's war have no choice but to describe it as a failure.

Thus endeth the lesson... Sad to say, the lesson has still not been learned by the Prez and other Leaders of the Free World (TM). If it were otherwise, why would be, at this very moment, making the same mistakes in Iraq and "the Levant"?

The failure of Western intervention in Afghanistan was hardly unique. During the 1980s, Patrick Brown was a foreign correspondent, reporting on the collapse of Communism, revolutions, wars and humanitarian disasters in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lebanon, East Timor, Burma, Cambodia and Korea. Western meddling, he observes, never solved the problems it set out to. Too frequently, our intervention only made things worse. As an interviewee told him, "WE have to solve our problems by ourselves."

There is more to Butterfly Mind than a potted history of Western failures in the third world. Patrick Brown is a recovering alcoholic. He speculates on the link between alcoholism and journalism. Perhaps journalism drives one to drink. Or perhaps alcoholics become journalists because it's a natural métier for garrulous drunks.

With professional help, Mr. Brown won -- or is winning -- his battle with the bottle. The beginning of his recovery coincided with his move in 1989, to China, where he now makes his home. In Butterfly Mind, he skillfully interweaves his personal story with his observations of Western engagement (to use the latest buzzword) with the Third World, and draws comparisons and parallels with the policies and politics of Communist China.

He writes of the efforts of several Chinese "freedom fighters", including several of those profiled in Out of Mao's Shadow, reviewed here a month ago. He concludes that if change -- regime change and/or social change -- is to come to China, the Chinese will have to bring about that change by themselves, without "help" from the West.

Patrick Brown wishes the Chinese good luck. Walt agrees and extends the same wish to the writer himself. And Walt recommends Butterfly Mind -- good reading as we approach the Chinese New Year.