To our Canadian readers and friends...

Walt, Poor Len [and Ed.! Ed.], who loved the Canada we knew before 20 April (aka 4-20) 1968*, extend our sympathies over the loss of your country. 

Please try to have a happy Canada Day in spite of everything.

 

* For those who don't recognize the date, 20/4/68 is the date on which Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party (aka Natural Governing Party) of Canada was sworn in as Prime Minister. The sheeple of Canada apparently weren't listening when Emperor Trudeau I (as he was later known) said, "You won't recognize Canada when I'm done with it."

UPDATED: Kirk killer looks normal, for a loonie leftist

"We've got him!", said President Trump first thing this morning. And here he is --Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old from Utah. That's all we know about him... so far.

This is what we know about what led up to his arrest, at 2200 MDT yesterday, for the brutal public assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Federal investigators and state officials released a series of photos and a video of the person they believe is responsible. They also released new and enhanced photos of a person in a hat, sunglasses, a long-sleeve black shirt and a backpack. 

A Mauser .30-06, bolt-action rifle was found in a towel in the woods. A spent cartridge was recovered from the chamber, and three other rounds were loaded in the magazine, according to information circulated among law enforcement and described to The Associated Press. 

Unlike the Wall Street Journal (see yesterday's post on WWW) AP, a charter member of the lickspittle media pack, said nothing about any strange markings on the bullets, only that the weapon and ammunition were being analyzed at a federal lab. 

Without even hinting that Charlie Kirk is the latest victim of the culture wars, AP says his assassination "offers the latest example of how ordinary security measures can be defeated in an era of escalating political violence, when anyone associated with the political process is a potential target. Security experts interviewed by AP questioned whether the event was sufficiently staffed but also acknowledged the limitations of both campus police forces and outdoor venues."

Are we going to be told any more about the alleged assassination, such as his political and/or sexual preferences? Depends on whether or not that information fits the liberal woke orthodoxy. Stay tuned... but don't hold your breath.

UPDATE added @ 1310 FMT: Surprise, surprise! We're actually hearing more about what was going on inside Mr Robinson's alleged mind. 

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) revealed today that bullet casings in the rifle allegedly used by Tyler Robinson to assassinate Charlie Kirk were etched with a variety of messages. He said that investigators noted inscriptions that had been engraved on casing found with the rifle. 

Insriptions on a fired casing read: "Notice bulges OwO What’s this?" Inscriptions on the three unfired casings read: "Hey fascist! Catch!” [and then] Up arrow symbol, right arrow symbol, and three down arrow symbols. A second unfired casing read, "O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao," and a third unfired casing read, "If you read this, you are gay, LMAO."

The arrow symbols may have been a video game reference. The phrase “bella ciao” is reportedly associated with left-wing songs, loosely linked to 20th century Italian opponents of fascism. The "Notices bulges" message, according to Know Your Meme, is a reference to gay sexuality associated with the "furry" phenomenon, which refers to attraction to cartoon animals. 

Walt sez: Aha! There's the queer element, right there! Stay tuned for more....

Further reading (for our followers in Canuckistan): "Charlie Kirk's blunt assessment of life in Canada goes viral after shooting death", by Mark Daniell, Toronto Sun, 12/9/25.

VIDEO: What's wrong with the Sydney Sweeney ad?

Walt was not far enough away from civilization (?) to avoid the controversy over this ad for American Eagle jeans. "Some people" (you know who I mean) are criticizing the ad for being "provocative", "divisive" and even... wait for it... "racist"! Well, let's have a look.

 

I'd say 1000s of real women are running down to their local clothing emporium, even as we speak, to buy a pair or three. And hundreds of thousands of real men are buying a pair (or three) for their significant others. 

Why not? Well, the wokesters at The Body Optimist will tell you why this ad offends them, in an article headed: "It's even racist!": Sydney Sweeney criticized for an ad deemed provocative", by Léa Michel (note the pretentious spelling of the name) posted today. No need to follow the link. Walt is going to turn on the bullshit meter and analyze the whole steaming load. The woke BS is in pink and my comments are in brackets.  

Now American Eagle's latest campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney has set social media ablaze. With the slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans," the brand aimed for "a stylish homage to denim classics." Except the message wasn't received the same way by everyone. Accused of reviving sexist stereotypes and even flirting with racist codes, the ad campaign has sparked a lively debate about the boundaries between marketing provocation, gendered representation, and latent cultural racism. [Who "sparked" the debate? I didn't hear anyone complaining.]

In the most talked-about clip of recent days, Sydney Sweeney, who rose to fame in the series "Euphoria" and "The White Lotus," repairs a vintage car—a Mustang GT350—wearing a fitted tank top and skinny jeans from the brand. [The video above is not the offending clip. This is the hot one!]  

The whole thing is a mix of modernized pin-up aesthetics and a tribute to the codes of male auto mechanics. [See, for the wokesters, nothing offensive is ever said directly. You have to know the "code" to get the sexist, racist, yada yada message.] She is then seen wiping her hands on her jeans before getting into the vehicle. The slogan, in turn, refers to the cut of the jeans and, according to the brand, the "confidence each person can have when wearing them." 

What could have been a slightly retro and sexy campaign quickly drew the ire of several internet users. Some people saw it as an "anti-woke" or even supremacist message. Others denounced the staging as reducing a woman to her appearance, in a pose that flirts with the most persistent clichés of 1990s marketing. [Some people saw it like that? Were they looking through pink- or mauve-coloured glasses?]

A gendered and racial reading of the message The phrase "superb jeans" has been accused of playing on a double meaning: jeans (pants) and genes (genetics). A potentially problematic pun, according to critics, who point out that in English, the pronunciation is identical (jeans / genes). 

[Wait. It gets worse.] On the X network (formerly Twitter), some voices saw in this choice an allusion to the supposed "purity" of the actress's origins - young, white, blonde, thin - often elevated to a Western aesthetic fantasy. [You bet! I've been trying for years to construct a real fantasy out of a fake reality.]

Criticism also focuses on the actress's posture, her sexualization, and the fact that the campaign once again exploits a hyper-standardized image of femininity: a slim body, a soft gaze, suggested but controlled sexuality, all in a setting that recalls the appropriation of a so-called masculine universe (mechanics) to divert it for aesthetic purposes. An approach deemed dated by some commentators, who denounce a vision still largely dominated by the male gaze. [That's a lot. Pass me the barf bag.]

Faced with the controversy, American Eagle quickly took to its Instagram account to speak out. Refusing to apologize [Good on `em!], the brand insists that the slogan refers only to jeans, the ones worn by the actress, and in no way to anything else. It writes: "The slogan 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans' is and always will be about jeans. Her jeans. Her story." 

She [sic] also says she wants to "continue to celebrate the way each person wears their AE jeans with confidence, in their own way," emphasizing a desire for inclusivity. [Oops, got some weasel words in there, at the last minute.] The brand therefore seems to be taking ownership of its approach, focusing on a visually strong editorial line, even if it means shaking things up. [Shaking what things up? Do they mean the woke narrative that anything that appeals to men and their "toxic masculinit" is baaddd?]

Notably, the White House itself intervened. Steven Cheung, the presidential communications director, posted a message on X declaring: "Cancel culture has no limits. Liberal ideology is twisted, stupid, and blocked, which is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024." [Right on, Steven!]

This unexpected support, in particularly virulent language, reinforced the idea that this campaign is now being co-opted in an ultra-polarized political climate, both in the United States and elsewhere. [Co-opted by whom? Steven Cheung is a Chinese-American. Is he working for the white supremacists? LOL]

The fact that American Eagle's stock jumped nearly 10% [Forget the jeans. Buy the stock.] after the campaign aired is no coincidence: commercial provocation still pays off, especially in a context of growing rejection of political correctness in certain circles. [Are you in the same circle as Walt?!]

[Last words to the woke.] Ultimately, this campaign highlights a growing tension in contemporary society: how can we speak to the greatest number of people, in an era saturated with images, without offending? Should we please or disturb in order to sell? And at what cost? 

The Sydney Sweeney case also illustrates the tension between female injunctions to emancipation and those that continue to sell a standardized, desirable, and performative femininity. By choosing a renowned pop icon with an image that was both glamorous and accessible, American Eagle knew it wasn't speaking into a vacuum. However, the reception shows how diverse, sometimes contradictory, and deeply politicized contemporary interpretations are. [Last word to Walt: If these ads are divisive, it's only because "certain people" want them to be so, as the culture wars continue.]

Worth reading! "American Nations" by Colin Woodard

Way back in 2011 -- note the date carefully -- Colin Woodard, a writer/historian/journalist from Maine, wrote American Nations -- A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (Viking). Part history, part sociology and part ethnography, the book traces the formation of Yankeedom, the Deep South, the Left Coast, etc from the 17th century to the early 21st century.

Since the cultural revolution of the hippy-dippy 60s, the fault lines between North America's regional interests have been growing ever wider, resulting in the division of America into left and right, blue and red, and urban and rural "nations". In the decade since the book was published, the split has been almost 50-50, as witness the elections that brought President Trump and Crooked Joe Biden to power. What happens next?

In the Epilogue, Mr Woodard reveals his liberal bias. He wants to see the US of A held together as a "liberal democracy". But he wonders if that's possible. Here are two key excerpts, with Walt's contrarian comments.

At this writing [2011... and things have gotten much worse since then!], the United States...has been exhibiting the classic symptoms of an empire in decline.... Like its superpower predecessors, the United States has built up a staggering external trade deficit and sovereign debt while overreaching itself militarily and greatly increasing both the share of financial services in national output and the role of religious extremists in national political life.

Once the great exporter of innovations, products, and financial capital, the United States is now deeply indebted to China, on which it relies for much of what its people consume and, increasingly, for the scientists and engineers needed by research and development firms and institutions.

Its citizenry is deeply divided along regional lines, with some in the "Tea Party" movement adopting the rhetoric of the eighteenth-century Yankee minutemen, only with the British Parliament replaced by the federal Congress, and George III by their duly elected president. Its military has been mired in expensive and frustrating counterinsurgency wars in Mesopotamia and Central Asia, while barbarians have stormed the gates of its political and financial capitals, killing thousands in the surprise attaches of September 2001.

Add in the damage to public confidence in the electoral system caused by the 2000 election [the 2016 and 2020 elections were even worse!], the near-total meltdown of the financial sector in 2008 [and the near panic of last month!], and extreme political dysfunction in the Capitol [and that was in the Prez's first term!], and it's clear the United States has not started the century auspiciously....

One scenario that might preserve the status quo for the United States would be for its nations to follow the Canadian example [Eh? Trudeau's Canada?] and compromise on their respective cultural agendas for the sake of unity. Unfortunately, neither the Dixie bloc nor the Northern alliance is likely to agree to major concessions to the other.

The majority of Yankees, New Netherlanders and Left Coasters simple aren't going to accept living in an evangelical Christian theocracy with weak or non-existent social, labor, or environmental protections, public school systems, and checks on corporate power in politics.

Most Deep Southerners will resist paying higher taxes to underwrite the creation of a public health insurance system; a universal network of well-resourced, unionized, and avowedly secular schools; tuition-free public universities where science--not the King James Bible--guides inquiry; taxpayer-subsidized public transportation; high-speed railroad networks; and renewable energy projects; or vigorous regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with strict financial, food safety, environmental, and campaign finance laws. [This prescription for a better America might have been written by Bernie Sanders!] 

Instead, the "red" and "blue" nations will continue to wrestle with one another for control over federal policy, each doing what it can to woo the "purple" ones to their cause, just as they have since they gathered at the First Continental Congress.

Another outside possibility is that, faced with a major crisis, the federation's leaders will betray their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the primary adhesive holding the union together. In the midst of, say, a deadly pandemic outbreak [Written in 2001. How did he know?!] or the destruction of several cities by terrorists, a fearful public might condone the suspension of civil rights, the dissolution of Congress, or the incarceration of Supreme Court justices.

One can easily imagine circumstances in which some nations are happy with the new order and other deeply opposed to it. With the Constitution abandoned, the federation could well disintegrate, forming one or more confederations of like-minded regions.

Chances are these new sovereign entities would be based on state boundaries, because state governors and legislators would be the most politically legitimate actors in such a scenario. Sates dominated by the three Northern alliance nations--New York, New Jersey, and the New England, Great Lakes, and Pacific Northwest States might form one or more confederations. States controlled by the Deep South -- South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana -- might form another. The mountain and High Plains states of the Far West would constitute an obvious third.

The situation might be more complicated within often-divided Greater Appalachia or the "nationally mixed" states of Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Arizona. It's not impossible to imagine some of the resulting coalitions extending into Canada, or, in the case of El Norte, Mexico.

If this extreme scenario were to come to pass, North America would likely be a far more dangerous, volatile, and unstable place, inviting meddling from imperial powers overseas. If this scenario of crisis and breakup seems far-fetched, consider the fact that, forty years ago, the leaders of the Soviet Union would have thought the same thing about their continent-spanning federation. 

Mr Woodard's preferred scenario is clear enough, but is that how things will play out, or is the US of A headed for another civil war? Stay tuned.

VIDEO: Dr Jordan Peterson on the true nature of the war in Ukraine

About a month ago, Dr Jordan Peterson (for whom Walt has all the time in the world!) wrote an article for the Daily Wire entitled "Russia Vs. Ukraine Or Civil War In The West?" In this thought-provoking piece, Dr Peterson listed the reasons why we're seeing an extended conflict in Ukraine, and explains why a culture war in the West has fueled the Russian fire.

Since the Daily Wire is accessible only to members, the article was not widely read or circulated. So Dr Peterson read it aloud on his YouTube channel. Click here to watch the entire video. It's over 51 minutes long. If you're thinking that's too much -- some other time, perhaps -- Ed. has prepared the clip below in which Dr Peterson sums up his message of warning.

We hope you will now be motivated to click on the link to the full video to understand why there's much more to the war in Ukraine than just resisting Russian imperialism. Those who, like Walt, cherish the ideal of a free and independent Ukraine, need to take a broader and deeper view of the conflict. 

We cannot be assured that we are on The Right Side until we understand the moral, philosophical and ideological positions of the combatants. If it comes down to a civil war between those who stand for the values of Christian civilization and those who espouse today's politically orthodox secular humanism, whose side should we take? 

Thanks to Agent 9 for pointing us in the right direction.

Trudeau to run for US Congress?

Nooooo.... It wasn't the gang at the Babylon Bee that made this up, but the normally serious editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal, who this week ran a similar headline, without the question mark. A subhead added "The Canadian Prime Minister can’t get enough of U.S. politics."

Seriously? You bet! The Emperor of Canuckistan just loves getting up on his hind feet and preaching about the issues of the day... as long as they're American issues!  If it's something Canadians care about -- health care, immigration, the price of gas -- M Trudeau is not interested. Ho-hum. 

Case in point: On Sunday he made a special trip to London ON (flying for 45 minutes in a government jet, of course) to bang the drums against Islamophobia, on the first anniversary of the vehicular homicide of a Muslim family. An atrocious crime, to be sure, but were "millions upon millions" of Canadians grieving, as Mr Socks said? Noooo. The truth is that the vast majority of Canadians don't give even half a shit about Islamophobia.

The WSJ says, Mr Socks' pissing and moaning about this and other "issues" largely irrelevant to Canadians don't make any sense unless one considers the Liberals' desire to score points with an American audience, "or a Canadian audience who watches too much CNN."

Another example: Pretending that abortion "rights" are under threat in Canada. Fact is, there are no laws, federal or provincial, regarding the killing of unborn babies. No term limits, no restrictions of any kind. In Canada, it's abortion on demand. And the issue is not even debatable. Even Canada's so-called Conservative Party has made it clear that they will never introduce legislation to disrupt the status quo.

Another non-issue that has preoccupied Blackie McBlackface since the Buffalo massacre is gun control. He seems to think that more bans on guns in Canada will somehow stop mass shootings like the one in Uvalde TX, a mere 2000 miles or so from the World's Longest Undefended Border.

So he's decided to "freeze" the sale or transfer of handguns. The Uvalde shooting was committed with a long gun, but that doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that Canadian laws don't apply in Texas. Or the fact that Canada already has laws that effectively prohibit the legal purchase of handguns by almost everyone. The handguns used in the admittedly growing number of shootings in Canada are mostly smuggled in from the US of A and used by gangstas who are similarly smuggled in from other places.

Put those two concerns together, add in a couple of others (such as immigration), and you get Junior's unrelenting importation of American race and culture wars. As anyone who's lived outside the Ottawa bubble knows, the principal Canadian racial divide is the one between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Indigenous Canadians earn significantly less, their average life expectancy is 15 years earlier and they're disproportionately the victims of unmistakably racist attacks.

Yet M Trudeau, once insensitive to anti-black racism to the point of wearing blackface at costume parties, now thinks feels that combating such racism is more important than addressing the grievances of Canada's "First Nations". Here he is, "taking a knee" for 9 minutes at a Black Lives Matter protest over the shooting of the drug-addled felon George Floyd.

That was during the summer of 2020, when Black Lives Matter protests and (let's call a spade a spade) race riots roiled the USA. Since then, Mr Socks' government has repeatedly framed Canadian race relations as being inflected by the legacies of slavery and segregation, although African slavery in Canada ended 40 years earlier than in the USA.

The Liberals have introduced into the Canuck snivel service "anti-racism training" that mentions slavery more often than Indian Residential Schools. Emperor Trudeau also never fails to weep crocodile tears in response to every major American racial incident, while overlooking any number of Canadian equivalents. 

Which bring us to Liberals' latest wheeze: doing someething about an over-incarceration problem that doesn't exist. "Sentencing reform" is a big issue in the USA for the singular reason that America has more prisoners (as a percentage of the total population) than any other country. But, according to the World Prison Brief, Canada is actually near the bottom of the league table when it comes to incarceration rates, ranking 143rd in terms of its per capita rate of people in jail.

It's true that jails and prisons in western provinces are full of Indigenous people, and those in Ontario are full of black people, but there's a reason for that. As anyone who watches the nightly news on TV stations in Winnipeg and Toronto, it's because the majority of both perpetrators and victims of violent crime are POCs (persons of colour). 

Nevertheless, the Trudeau government has jumped on the American sentencing reform bandwagon with Bill C-5, which would drop mandatory minimum sentences for a host of violent crimes, including robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and extortion with a firearm. And speaking of gun smuggling (see above), C-5 would also reduce sentencing for six charges related to weapons trafficking. 

Speaking (again) of smuggling, how about Junior's allowing in 60,000 illegal border crossers (for that's what they are!) to spite President Trump! The WSJ says Canada has never really faced a major migrant crises along its southern border. In 2017, 1000s of "refugees" and "asylum-seekers" began coursing through what Ottawa would come to call "irregular" border crossings, notably the one at Roxham Road near St-Bernard-de-Lacolle QC.

The crossings emerged entirely to bypass the Safe Third Country Agreement, under which refugee claimants at the US-Canadian border are turned away on the grounds that they’re already in a safe country. The influx neatly coincided with a tweet from Mr Socks, just after President Trump was sworn in, which read "To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith."

Did you catch that last phrase? That means "Muslims welcome!", which brings us back to where we started [and about time, too. Ed.] That tweet is easily the most-shared thing that Junior ever posted to the internet, and it was a direct response to President Trump's executive order barring entry to the USA by nationals of seven predominantly Muslim nations.

America's liberal media -- that's most of them! -- heaped praise on M Trudeau's head, and the Canadian media followed suit. Meanwhile, the back door opened wide for 1000s of inadmissible foreigners, who travelled to the USA on visitor visas for the express purpose of entering Canada illegally. 

It hasn't been closed since, in spite of the election (?) of a new pro-Muslim president who quickly reversed the "anti-Muslim" executive order. "Terrorists don't need to go to Canada. You can stay right here in the USA. Don't forget to register as a Democrat!"

Did you catch the hint, two paragraphs above, that I'm out of space? There's only one way to wrap this up.

VIDEO: Dr Jordan Peterson interviews Rex Murphy

From time to time we've featured words written and spoken by one of our favourite political and social commentators, Rex Murphy. Mr Murphy is best known for working for the CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) in the days when they allowed at least the occasional piece of non-liberal commentary. 

He also wrote for the Globe and Mail, before it too got woke, and is currently contributing columns to the National Post. Mr Murphy is almost as old as Walt, but still a strong voice for conservatism... true conservatism... and common sense. 

He has a podcast on which he has hosted many controversial personalities, including Dr Jordan Peterson, another of Walt's favourites. Here, in a case of turnabout, is Dr Peterson's interview with Mr Murphy, published today. 

This is a long piece -- two-and-a-quarter hours -- for the very good reason that they cover a lot of ground. Topics include Mr Murphy's impressive career, Canadian politics, western culture, the woke culture wars, the liberal orthodoxy of universities, the crumbling study of the humanities, New Finland, Toronto, and much more. I suggest you bookmark it and dip in when you have some time to put to good use.

   

Dr Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy... inspiration for proudly conseervative (but humble!) scriveners like yr obdt servant. Two thumbs up!

VIDEOS (2): How leftie political correctness ruined "Star Wars"

Dave Sussman and Bill Whittle discuss how Hollywood has rewritten crucial scenes in Star Wars to accommodate a new politically correct, inclusive, diverse, yada yada yada view of heroes and society, and how it enrages a large swath of millennials. Mr Whittle explains the "walk away" strategy, and how it can be used to weaken the Democratic Party and win the culture war.

Don't miss Bill's riff, around the 17 minute mark, on how Star Wars is (and was intended to be) a religion for a post-Christian world.



As someone who liked the first three Star Wars movies (Parts IV, V and VI), disliked the next three and was so put off by the trailers for those that followed that I didn't even see them, I give this two thumbs up.

Footnote (Footvideo?): Did Han Solo shoot first? Ed. found Bill Whittle's earlier (2012) video in which he discusses the issue. Here it is.



Now I understand -- thanks Bill! -- why there hasn't been a movie made in the last five years that I've found worth seeing. American movies stink! Hollywood stinks! Political correctness and leftist ideology stink! A pox on the lot of them!

Another footnote: If you enjoyed listening to Bill Whittle demolish Star Wars and American cinema, you'll surely get a chuckle out of "Story Time: Bill Reads a Hillary Clinton Children's Book!" Posted in February 2016, it wasn't the only reason why Hellery lost the election, but I'm sure it helped! LMAO!

"Culture wars" in Canada? Really?

You bet, EH! Not content with involving his country in a shooting war in the Middle East -- score so far: Muslims 3, Canadian troops 0 -- Canuck PM Steve Harper has quite unaccountably resurrected the debate over the "Canadian values" enshrined in Québec's Charter of Values, proposed but not enacted last year.

As Walt explained in "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", the law mooted by the Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois would have prohibited the wearing by public servants in public places of religious dress and symbols, including the Jewish kippa, Sikh turban and kirpan, large Christian crosses, and the hijabs, niqabs and burqas favoured by some Muslim women.

If you're not sure about the difference between hijab, niqab and burqa, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?". (That post from 2010 is near the top of WWW's all-time most-read list.)  Or just study this illustration below, which includes the chador, something like a hijab extended to a full cloak.

To the consternation of the English-speaking chattering classes and the usual celebrants of diversity, polling consistently showed the proposed charter a winner with French-speaking Québec voters. But there were other issues -- a sluggish economy, corruption and (as usual) separation -- compared with which religious headgear seemed unimportant, and the PQ government went down to defeat, and with it the charter.

All was quiet for the next ten months, until the Federal Court of Canada struck down a regulation, introduced by then Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in 2011, banning the wearing of the niqab or any other face covering while taking the Oath of Citizenship.

An immigrant from Pakistan had sent home for a bride -- as is "normal" for the clannish south Asians -- and brought to Canada a devout Muslim lady named Zunera Ishaq. In due course Ms Ishaq applied for citizenship and passed the examination ("What's a 'double-double'?") in November 2013. When it came time to take the oath, she objected to the requirement to remove the veil at the citizenship ceremony it is unnecessary for the purposes of identity or security. Worse than that, she said, it's a public event and her face would be seen by strange men.

Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat Ms Ishaq in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.

The upshot was that the ceremony was deferred and Ms Ishaq brought suit. Mr. Justice Keith M. Boswell ruled that "To the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath, it is unlawful."

Fair enough. Freedom of religion seems to be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms embedded in the Canadian Constitution. But... is the wearing of the niqab (or hijab or burqa) a requirement of Islam? No! It is just a cultural practice, the custom in certain parts of the Muslim world -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and places where "freedom of religion" applies only to Muslims, and not all Muslims at that!

To the surprise of many, the Harper government has decided to appeal Mr. Justice Boswell's decision. A spokesthingy for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said, "New citizens are obliged to confirm their identity when taking the Oath of Citizenship‎, which is sworn or affirmed in public. It is simply common sense to require removal of facial coverings or other items that hide new citizens’ mouths from view. The oath, knowledge and language tests, as well as years of residency, are among the basic requirements for joining the family of Canadian citizens."

The Prime Minister himself put the case rather more strongly. Speaking in the House of Commons this week, Mr. Harper called the Federal Court's move to strike down the 2011 ban "offensive", and said, "We don't allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies, and why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?" (My emphasis. Walt)

So there you have it. Going about with your face covered, especially at a ceremony meant to show your commitment to your adopted country, is contrary to Canadian values. Minister Kenney told CBC Radio's The House today that people should pledge their allegiance to their fellow citizens publicly and openly. (Click here to listen to the complete interview, including Mr. Kenney's waffle on whether or not Canada will continue to participate in the American invasion of Iraq.)

The government view is finding a lot of favour with ordinary Canadians -- non-members of the meeja and PC mafia -- outside of Toronto, particular in... wait for it... Québec. On the same edition of The House, an imam said the niqab isn't part of Muslim culture, but only of Saudi culture. Mr. Harper told the House of Commons that he speaks for not just the majority of Canadians, but the majority of moderate Muslims. Will the Federal Court of Appeal agree? We'll see. Meanwhile, the war continues.

Pat Buchanan questions Pope's stance in the culture wars

To judge by his public pronouncements, Pope Francis wants to be neutral in the so-called "culture wars" over issues such as abortion, same-sex "marriage" and the moral degradation of the West. "Who am I to judge [homosexuals]" said the pope who Msgr Patrick Perez denounced publicly as "a disgrace".

"Who am I to judge?" Walt answered the Holy Father's question on July 29th. And now Pat Buchanan -- perhaps a reader of WWW? -- says, "Well, he is pope. And even the lowliest parish priest has to deliver moral judgments in a confessional."

In "Papal Neutrality in the Culture War?", Mr. Buchanan accuses Pope Francis of bordering on moral relativism by refusing to condemn atheists and LGBT individuals. The Pope, he writes, is attempting to move the Catholic Church "to a stance of non-belligerence, if not neutrality, in the culture war for the soul of the West."

Strong stuff! The sound you hear is Walt applauding. Here's more of what Mr. Buchanan has to say about the Pope's astonishing departure lack of leadership on some of the most important cultural and moral issues of our day. The emphasis is Walt's.

"There is a small problem with neutrality. As Trotsky observed, 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” For the church to absent itself from the culture war is to not to end that war, but to lose it.'

"What would that entail? Can we not already see? In America, the family has disintegrated. 40% of working-class white children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children, and 73% of black children. Kids from broken homes are many times more likely to drop out of school, take drugs, join gangs, commit crimes, end up in prison, lose their souls, and produce yet another generation of lost souls.

"[Laurie] Goodstein [of the New York Times] quotes the Holy Father as listing among the 'most serious of the evils' today 'youth unemployment'. And he calls upon Catholics not to be 'obsessed' with abortion or same-sex marriage. But is teenage unemployment really a graver moral evil than the slaughter of 3,500 unborn every day in a land we used to call 'God’s Country'?

"Papal encyclicals like Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno have much to teach about social justice in an industrial society. But what is the special expertise of the church in coping with teenage unemployment? Has the Curia done good scholarly work on the economic impact of the minimum wage?

"The cultural revolution preached by Marxist Antonio Gramsci is continuing its “long march” through the institutions of the West and succeeding where the violent revolutions of Lenin and Mao failed. It is effecting a transvaluation of all values. And it is not interested in a truce with the church of Pope Francis, but a triumph over that church which it reviles as the great enemy in its struggle.

"Indeed, after decades of culture war waged against Christianity, the Vatican might consider the state of the Faith. Our civilization is being de-Christianized. Popular culture is a running sewer. Promiscuity and pornography are pandemic. In Europe, the churches empty out as the mosques fill up. In America, Bible reading and prayer are outlawed in schools, as Christian displays are purged from public squares. Officially, Christmas and Easter do not exist.

"The pope, says Goodstein, refers to proselytizing as 'solemn nonsense'. But to proselytize is to convert nonbelievers. And when Christ admonished his apostles, 'Go forth and teach all nations', and ten of his twelve were martyred doing so, were they not engaged in the Church’s true commission — to bring souls to Christ....

"An Italian atheist quotes the pope as saying, 'Everyone has his own idea of good and evil,' and everyone should 'follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.' Does this not reflect the moral relativism of Prince Hamlet when he said to Rosencrantz, 'there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so?' Yet, is it not the church’s mission to differentiate good and evil and condemn the latter?

"'Since he became pope,' writes Goodstein, Francis’ 'approval numbers are skyrocketing. Even atheists are applauding.' Especially the atheists, one imagines. While Pope Francis has not altered any Catholic doctrines in his interviews and disquisitions, he is sowing seeds of confusion among the faithful, a high price to pay, even for 'skyrocketing' poll numbers."

Further reading: "Why don't we proselytize?" by James Bannister, in Fatima Perspectives.

NY Times asks: Are Muslims the new Catholics?

The politically correct New York Times ran an unusual op-ed piece on Monday, contributed by Doug Saunders, writing from Toronto. Mr Saunders draws a strong analogy between contemporary "concerns" about Islam and the Islamization of the West, on the one hand, and 20th-century American anti-Catholicism on the other.

He makes the point that as late as 1950, American Freedom and Catholic Power sold nearly a quarter of a million copies in the USA, and was on the Times best-seller list for weeks. earlier feelings of anger and to anti-Catholic sentiments of earlier generations.

"The view that members of a religious minority are not to be trusted — that they are predisposed to extremism, disloyalty and violence; resist assimilation; reproduce at alarming rates, and are theologically compelled to impose their backward religious laws on their adopted home — is not new.... From the 19th century on, distrust, violence and, eventually, immigration restrictions were aimed at waves of Roman Catholic immigrants."


Mr Saunders continues: "Many Americans shunned such views, but some liberals did not. Mr. Blanshard’s book was endorsed by the likes of John Dewey and Bertrand Russell, and respected scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset, Reinhold Niebuhr and Sidney Hook debated Catholics’ supposed propensity toward authoritarianism."

The point Mr Saunders overlooks -- thus rendering his argument specious -- is that the moral and social values espoused by Catholics are virtually identical to the Protestant Christian values on which America was founded and built.

Muslims, however, follow a false prophet and seek to impose on Western society a culture which is backward, barbaric, and alien to our way of life. If we think the Islamists are predisposed to extremism, disloyalty and violence; resist assimilation; reproduce at alarming rates, and are theologically compelled to impose their backward religious laws on their adopted home — we do so with good reason.

Further reading on WWW: "How can we be silent in the face of Islamization of our country?" This post has been in the top five on Walt's "hits list" for weeks now.

It's not "the film", stupid! It's just anti-Americanism, is all

With her usual unerring aim, Margaret Wente hits the nail squarely on the head in "It's too easy to lay all the blame on a crude video", in today's Globe and Mail. She exposes the Democratic party line, as expressed on Sunday by Susan Rice (US ambassador to the Disunited Nations) that "what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world".

Ms Rice's characterization of the video is quite correct, but, as anyone who's seen even a snippet of it realizes, "Innocence of Muslims" is no big deal. It looks and sounds like a Grade 8 school play, and in no way deserves to be taken as seriously as would appear from the ferocity of the demonstrations against it.

But -- and this is Ms Wente's point -- the near-riots in the streets of cities throughout the Muslim world are not against the film so much as against America itself. She writes, "The line...that the protests were directed against the video, not the U.S. ...might come as a surprise to the folks who were burning American flags and chanting, 'Obama, Obama, we love Osama.'"

The Muslims hate America. That has been the case for decades, long before American soldiers burnt copies of the Qu'ran, long before they pissed on dead Afghan prisoners and long before this stupid little film appeared on YouTube. "Innocence of Muslims" is just this week's catalyst for a deep and longlasting hatred of America's culture, America's religion [Wozzat? Ed.] and America's version of democracy.

Ms Wente reminds us that Al O'Bama -- a Muslim sympathizer if not a Muslim himself -- was supposed to fix all that.

Back in 2009, President Barack Obama went to Cairo and promised to reset the U.S. relationship with the Arab world. Unlike his predecessor, he sympathized with Muslim aspirations. Muslims were anti-American because of bad American policies, and he would fix that. Things didn’t quite work out as planned. Back then, 70 per cent of Egyptians had an unfavourable opinion of the U.S. Today, 79 per cent do.

What conclusion are we to draw? Too many liberal intellectuals – and now, unbelievably, the U.S. administration – seem to think it’s partly our fault when Western insults to Islam lead to riots in the streets. But maybe there’s a bigger cause. Although it’s deeply unfashionable to say so, maybe what we have here is a clash of civilizations. Indeed.

Benedict XVI calls freedom of American Catholics gravely threatened

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has sent a deeply disturbing message to American Catholics on the occasion of the 130th Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus, which opens tomorrow in Anaheim CA.

In a letter signed on his behalf by Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone -- well known for his tolerance of Protestantism, Freemasonry and heresy even within the walls of the Vatican -- the Holy Father warned of the "unprecedented gravity" of threats to the religious freedom of Catholics in the USA.

In the letter, the Pope praises the American tradition of freedom, especially freedom of religion. But he notes "the responsibility of each new generation to preserve, defend and advance those great ideals in its own day".

Pope Benedict repeats the theme his January Ad Limina Address to the American bishops, in which he said the demands of the new evangelization and the defence of the Church’s freedom in our day call for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.

Click here to read the full text of the Pope's message, "Proclaiming liberty in the USA".

Muslim immigration top issue in French election

Last week Walt predicted that the killings by -- and subsequent "judicial execution" of -- Mohamed Merah would make the Islamization of France a major issue in that country's presidential election. This week, Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National -- a nationalist party diametrically opposed to immigration -- asked, "How many Mohammed Merahs are arriving on boats and planes each day, filling France with immigrants? How many Mohammed Merahs are among the children of our immigrants?"

You have to give Mlle Le Pen full marks for the courage to ask such questions, in the face of daily vilification by the liberal press. But she is not the only one addressing the issue. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, fighting for re-election, has called for restrictions on legal immigration. He also wants laws to make it illegal to browse Islamist websites or visit Islamist training camps, and tougher policing and more deportations. Indeed, on the day of Merah’s first killing, Sarkozy said there were "too many foreigners" in France.

How is it, Walt wants to know, that the Europeans -- regarded here in North America as being a bunch of decadent, effete, liberal wimps -- have the guts to at least debate issues of immigration and culture, while our oh-so-PC "leaders" won't even acknowledge the Muslim elephant in the room?

Immigration has been a thorny issue ever since the invention of the wheel. The Chinese built a Great Wall to keep the hordes of foreigners out. And every country has a set of rules for dealing with new immigrants. Historically, newcomers had no help integrating into the host culture. They had to live with discrimination, adopt the culture and ways of their chosen land, and make the best of it.

Following the demise of the great colonial empires, Europe opened its doors to its black and brown ex-subjects, doing more than what was reasonable to deal with these ancient issues, in spite of the warnings of such seers as Enoch Powell. But now a new problem has arrived.

Never before has the world had to deal with a group that have a faith that tells them they must dominate all the others, that it is OK to lie to do that, and if that is not enough, it would be a good idea to blow yourself up if you have a chance of taking a few infidels with you. The old responses to a question as old as humanity simply don't work.

In the last decade or so, the French have come to realize that their country, their culture and their way of life is threatened by immigrants who refuse to adapt. It took centuries to build that country and culture and they want to keep it the way it is...or was. Who can blame them?

Meanwhile, in Canada and the USA, the do-gooders, "progressive thinkers", liberals and lamestream media keep feeding us the utter bullshit that immigration is good for our economy and for our country, that the majority of Muslims are good people who really share our values, and that the proliferation of mosques and Islamic cultural centres in our cities can be safely ignored. Anyone who disagrees must be an Islamophobe and a racist!

When will our politicians -- or even one of them -- grow a set and propose policies to protect our culture and our society from the Islamist menace.

Americans prefer life to death: Gallup poll

It isn't often that the good grey Wall Street Journal wades into the "culture wars". The WSJ does, however, concern itself with trends in public opinion, hence a thoughtful analysis by William McGurn in today's issue.

The conservative author (and former speech writer for George W. Bush) contends that the mainstream media are badly out of touch with American public opinion on the issue of abortion.

The liberal establisment keep telling us that the pro-life (i.e. anti-abortion) community is a fringe group of right-wing Christian nutbars. They tell us the Big Lie, that virtually all intelligent and progressive people long ago recognized women's "reproductive health rights", including the right to kill an unwanted baby.

McGurn says those who are pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) are in the minority. A majority of Americans may want abortion to remain legally available, he writes, but poll data consistently show the majority also wants to reduce the incidence of abortions. He quotes some statistics from a recent survey by the Gallup organization.

"Asked to rate various behaviors and social policies (e.g., embryonic stem-cell research, adultery, the death penalty) as either 'morally wrong' or 'morally acceptable', 50% called abortion wrong, as against only 38% who said it was acceptable.

"[They also found], for the second year in a row, that slightly more Americans consider themselves 'pro-life' than 'pro-choice' (47% to 45%)."

The seemingly contradictory poll results can be explained easily enough, McGurn argues, quoting Lydia Saad, a senior editor for Gallup. "On the one hand, the majority of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and think abortion should be legal in at least a few circumstances. On the other, most Americans favor legal restrictions on abortion that go way beyond current law."

Take heart then, dear pro-life reader. "Notwithstanding a pro-choice orthodoxy that dominates our film, our television, our press and our colleges and universities, strong moral qualms about abortion have not gone away."

Please continue to pray for the souls of the thousands and thousands of innocents who are murdered every year. Pray too for the conversion of those who see nothing wrong with this abomination.