Québec to require immigrant wannabes to pass values test

The government of the Canadian province of Québec announced yesterday that it will require immigrants seeking permanent residency to pass a values test to ensure they understand and respect its new secularism law, the provincial government said on Wednesday.

The measure is being implemented by the Coalition d'avenir Québec (CAQ) government of Premier François Legault as part of the plan to make the province totally secular, as promised during last fall's election campaign, in which the CAQ won a majority of seats in the National Assembly. The CAQ -- a nationalist, centre-right party -- ran on a platform which included cutting immigration to the predominantly French-speaking province, in order to protect its distinct identity within the Great No-longer-white North.

The new government was quick to pass Bill C-21, a law banning public employees in positions of authority wearing religious symbols such as Muslim hijabs and Jewish kippahs to work. The values test is intended to make sure that potential immigrants understand that law and its implications, M Legault told reporters on Wednesday. "I think it's important in Québec", he said, "because we are a nation, we are a distinct society, we have our values, we have our charter."

Bill C-21 has been roundly condemned by left-wing human rights activists, both internationally and in the rest of Canaada as infringing on "minority rights", especially the rights of the, errr, Muslim minority. A recent poll showed that over 70% of Québéclois support the law, but what the majority thinks is, of course, irrelevant. During this month's federal election campaign, the leaders of all the federal parties except the Bloc Québécois (the federal version of the provincial Parti Québécois) and Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada spoke out against C-21. Strangely, though, none of them went so far as to show support for a court challenge against the law. Mr Socks, however, said he'd think about it.

Premier Legault described the test as similar to one that exists at the federal level, where individuals applying for Canadian citizenship must pass a test on Canada's history and laws, among other topics. An individual must score at least 75% to pass the new Québec test that covers "democratic values and the Québec values expressed by the (Québec) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms," the government's official publication said. The test will apply only to economic immigrants and their families, not "refugees". So if you cross the open border with the USA illegally, you can keep your hijab or turban on.

Footnote: The green, white and red flag seen in the picture above is not one of the many Arab flags using those colours in a pattern of horizontal bars. It is le Drapeau des Patriotes (avec Le Vieux de '37). I leave it to interested readers to find out what the flag symbolizes. Any resemblance to the Confederate Battle Flag is purely coincidental.

Benedict XVI blames 60s culture, sexual revolution, for scandals, moral decline of Catholic Church

I have often written, here and in other publications, and told anyone who will listen, that the decline of the Roman Catholic Church and Christian (Western) society in general started in the hippy-dippy sixties. Our religion and our culture was killed by secularism and the counter-culture. So I enjoyed something of a "told ya so" moment yesterday when "Pope Emeritus" Benedict XVI released an essay on sexual abuse in the Church, which he blames on the "absence of God".

In the introduction to his "notes", the ex-Holy Father [Can there be such a thing? Ed.] writes: In the first part, I aim to present briefly the wider social context of the question, without which the problem cannot be understood. I try to show that in the 1960s an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history.... In the second part, I aim to point out the effects of this situation on the formation of priests and on the lives of priests. Finally, in the third part, I would like to develop some perspectives for a proper response on the part of the Church."

In the 6000-world essay, which originally appeared in Klerusblatt, a German-language magazine for the clergy, Pope Ratzinger blames the Church's sexual abuse scandal on the 1960s sexual revolution, growing secularization and weak church laws that made prosecution of guilty priests difficult. "Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was this all-out sexual freedom.... Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of `68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate." What an amazing admission! How dismaying for faithful Catholics, to hear this from no less a personage than the former Vicar of Christ. But there's more...

"Why did pedophilia reach such proportions?", Pope Ratzinger asks. "Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God," he answers, noting failed attempts to include a reference to God in European Union treaties as a negative example of Western secularization. He also cited the appearance of sex in films in the 60s in his native Bavaria and the formation in seminaries of "homosexual cliques" in seminaries "which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate." He also attributes the moral corruption of the Catholic clergy and the Church as a whole to "failures in moral theology".

Benedict also faulted Church laws that protected accused priests. He wrote that during the 80s and 90s "the right to a defence (for priests) was so broad as to make a conviction nearly impossible." In 1981 Pope John Paul II named Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office and, especially around the 16th century, as the Roman Inquisition.

But did he do anything to excise the rotten and diseased members of Christ's Church? He tried in 2001 to reforms of those laws to make it easier to remove priests who abused children, and later, as Pope, defrocked 100s of priests accused of raping and molesting children. But he was opposed by powerful forces -- "the lavender Mafia" -- within the Vatican itself. Some say his unprecedented "resignation" was engineered by those same evil men, who succeeded in replacing him with the more tolerant and merciful Jorge Bergoglio.

Compared with Pope Francis, Benedict XVI emerges in this essay as a voice calling Catholics to turn away from the excesses of Vatican II, and back to the values of traditional Catholicism. Of course he does not suggest that Vatican II was in error or anything like the "anti-council" which many traditionalists now claim it was.

He writes: "The Second Vatican Council was rightly focused on returning this sacrament of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ...to the centre of Christian life and the very existence of the Church. In part, this really has come about, and we should be most grateful to the Lord for it. [But] what predominates [now] is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ's death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery." The reference is to declining participation in Sunday Mass and treatment of the Eucharist as "a mere ceremonial gesture."

"We do not need another Church of our own design," Benedict concludes. "Rather, what is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament." A pity he didn't tell us sooner, but let us hope and pray for a Catholic Counter-Revolution, before Christ's Church disintegrates completely. Amen.

Further reading: "Benedict XVI addresses sex abuse scandal", Catholic Herald, 11/4/19.

VIDEO: True story of Philadelphia baby-killer now a movie

I don't go to the movies any more. Hollywood is churning out so much trash. And it's not even so-bad-it's-funny trash, like Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's just remakes, sequels and prequels like the latest excrescence in the Star Wars series -- franchises well past their sell-by dates being warmed over in hopes of a few quick bucks. And of course it's mostly fiction. Very few documentaries or even dramatized true stories will be found on the silver screen, at least not in my corner of the forest.

But there's always an exception -- a movie worth seeing and perhaps even worth recommending. One such, which made its debut on October 12th in cinemas across America (although not many of them) is Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer, which I'm going to recommend even though the subject matter -- the crimes of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell -- is such as to provoke anger, outrage, perhaps even despair. This movie won't rake in piles of money, but may well be the most important film to be released this year. Here's the trailer.



I first wrote about Kermit Gosnell's many murders, committed under the guise of "reproductive health services", in "How to kill unwanted babies (and make loadsa dough)", WWW 20/3/13. Two months later, after a trial revealed gruesome details which it is no exaggereation to call "horrific", "Kermit the Baby Killer" was found guilty as charged (WWW 13/5/13), and is now serving three consecutive life sentences.

Mr Gosnell (he wasn't really a doctor) may be in prison, but the evil of abortion persists, paid for in large part by public funds -- your tax dollars -- paid to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. These groups say they are promoting women's health and "a woman's right to choose", but are actually funding the medical murder of 1000s of babies -- some of them born alive, as in the Gosnell case -- every day of every month of every year, right across the USA.

This movie, like Mr Gosnell's crimes, won't get much notice in the lamestream media. While the trial was going on, Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic, asked why it wasn't being covered more. "The news value is undeniable," he said. "This story has numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought to be a big story on the merits."

What is behind the studied silence of the media is the same aggressive secularism and political correctness that keeps us from even discussing the evils and perversions of our post-Christian society. Nothing is "wrong" any more, because we -- or at least our "progressive thinkers" and opinion-makers -- have lost the ability to distinguish between wrong and right. Whatever your position on abortion, Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer is worth seeing and thinking about. That's why the baby-killers in the abortion industry don't want you to know about it. But now you know. Please share this post by passing on the URL to your neighbours, friends and family.

Further viewing: "Gosnell: The Powerful Story Liberal Media Hopes You Ignore - Katie Petrick & Dr. Duke Pesta"

Poll: Most Canadians think Islam, Sikhism bad for their society

Just heard from Agent 3 for the second time this week. In the third week of October (he writes) he responded to a poll conducted by the respected (and politically neutral) Angus Reid organization. Since the subject was "social issues", Agent 3 responded with alacrity (and very quickly too), but, since he figured the poll was being taken on behalf of Canada's Liberal government, he didn't expect to see the results published.

Surprise! The poll of nearly 2000 Canucks was conducted in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, powered by Cardus, a think tank. It's a non-denominational initiative "designed to engage Canadians and their institutions in a rich and robust conversation on faith in our common life." They took the poll, it seems, to see what impact their efforts to Draw All Faiths Together (DAFT) have had, and released the results earlier this week... even though the results were disappointing to those who believe people of all "faith communities" should get in a big circle and sing "Kumbaya".

The survey found that Canadians are divided over whether religious diversity is healthy for the country, and consider Islam, in particular, to be a negative force. 26% of respondents said increasing religious diversity is a good thing, while 23% said it is bad. (Agent 3 didn't say which group he fell into, but we can guess, can't we.) 44% said diversity brings a mix of good and bad, and the remaining 7% were unsure or, being Canadian, too polite to say how they really feel.

Questions about respondents' views on particular religious groups revealed strong anti-Islam sentiment. 46% of those polled said Islam is damaging Canada, while only 13% per cent said it is beneficial. 20% either did not know or care to say (see above), while 21% said the "Religion of Peace" has no real impact. The pollsters said the results are in keeping with "a well-documented pattern. Namely, if Islam is involved, a significant segment of Canadians will react negatively."

Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelical Christianity and Judaism all had overall positive ratings. The only other religion with an overall negative score was Sikhism, with 22% calling it damaging and 13%. Bad news for Jagmeet Singh, the new leader of Canada's socialistic New Democrats, who makes a big point of being a practising Sikh, wearing his very tall orange turban as a kind of visual punctuation mark.

Angus Reid, the founder and president of the eponymous institute, said he found it "disheartening that Canadians are not more committed to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Only a slight majority — 55% — of respondents said freedom of religion makes Canada a better country, while 14% said the freedom makes Canada worse and 21% thought it has no impact. Mr Reid told an interviewer, "I think the low number of Canadians who celebrate the fact that we have religious freedom is very troubling and really speaks to the forces of secularization that are at work in Canadian society."

Mr Reid sees in the results a "potential for intolerance" towards believers, especially adherents of minority religions. Asked whether various groups' influence was growing or shrinking in Canada, respondents identified Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism as growing. Canada's more established religious groups were all seen to have a shrinking influence.

Ray Pennings, executive vice-president of Cardus, said he thinks "what we're talking about is a public narrative." He found significance in the finding that the two groups seen negatively are also those with visible religious symbols such as the hijab and turban. (The poll was taken in the same week that the Québec National Assembly passed Bill 62, which restricts the wearing of religious headgear when providing or receiving public services.) "Is it a discomfort with the particulars of their faith," Mr Pennings asked, "or is it a discomfort with the fact that they’re different than us?"

The pollsters asked about that -- about "cases where religious practice intersects with the public sphere". There was solid opposition to the niqab, a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the entire face except the eyes. 49% of respondents said a woman in a niqab should be prohibited from visiting a government office and 29% said she should be discouraged but tolerated. Only 22% said the woman should be welcomed.

As is frequently seen on questions of religion, opinion in Québec was strongest on many of the questions. Fully 55% of Quebec respondents said Islam is damaging, and it was the only region where more people considered Judaism damaging (22%) than saw it as beneficial (11%). Québécois were most opposed to the niqab, with 68% saying it should be banned in government offices, which is the gist of Bill 62. They were also the most likely (31% vs 23% nationally) to identify increasing religious diversity as a bad thing.

Marine Le Pen criticizes Pope, Church for interfering in French politics

In an interview with La Croix, Marine Le Pen, the Front National candidate for the presidensity of France, said she was angry with the Roman Catholic Church "because I think it interferes with everything except what it should really be concerned with."

Mme Le Pen told the French daily that she has a "strong faith, and I am fortunate that I have never doubted it." She was, however, critical of Pope Francis, particularly on the issue of immigration. Charitable activities should be the responsibilities of individuals, she said, while states should pursue their national interests. "When the Pope urges nations to accept immigrants without restrictions," she declared, "this falls within the realm of politics and even interference."

The Front National leader took a strong stand for the French tradition of secularism in government and in public affairs generally. She argued that religious symbols such as the Islamic veil should not be allowed in public. "Secularism means that one can pass someone in the street," she explained, "without either one knowing what faith the other follows."

When asked whether religious leaders have a right to enter into public debates, Mme Le Pen replied, "I don’t get involved with what the Pope should say to his followers. I don't think religious should tell the French people how to vote." She went on to say that if she is elected President of France, she will "with great pleasure" invite the Pope to visit, "and I will tell him exactly what I have just told you!"

The first round of voting in France's presidential election takes place next week. If none of the candidates wins a majority, a run-off between the top two contenders will be held on May 7th.

Further reading: "Marine Le Pen: 'La priorité nationale, ce n'est ni illégal ni immoral'", La Croix, 14/4/17. Walt's stylish translation of the quote: "Putting your country first is neither illegal nor immoral!"

RC bishop denounces "totalitarianism" of school gender "guidelines" ... PLUS Cardinal confirms gay lobby at Vatican

Earlier today Walt introduced you to the phrase "gender ideology", a euphemism for the LGBTQ2S OK-to-be-gay agenda which is being fed to us every day in every way by the lamestream media, our politically correct politicians (notably Toronto Mayor John Tory and Ontario's lesbian Premier Kathleen Wynne), and, yes, our ultra-PC school boards and departments of education.

The pale-pink NDP government of Alberta, in the formerly conservative Canadian West, has just released new guidelines for "respecting students' gender identity". The guidelines announced by Alberta's Minister of Education Minister David Eggen "advise" school boards to develop policies that let students choose which washroom to use, the name on their report cards and the sports teams they wish to play on.

It's not what you have (or don't have) between your legs that determines your gender any more. It's how you feel about it! That must be what "two-spirited" means. (See "LGBTQ... but wait, there's more!", posted here earlier today.)

"Advise" is typical pinko-speak for a government "suggestion" that you'd better obey or else! The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, Most Rev. Fred Henry, calls the guidelines "totalitarian" and "anti-Catholic". In "Totalitarianism in Alberta", a pastoral letter posted online, Bishop Henry says, "This approach and directive smack of the madness of relativism and the forceful imposition of a particular narrow-minded anti-Catholic ideology."

He goes on to say that "[the guidelines] show no evidence of consultation with or sensitivity to the Catholic community. They breathe pure secularism." The Catholic Church, he explains, holds to a "rather simple" teaching that God created beings as male and female and that "men and women should respect and accept their sexual identity."

Bishop Henry also disapproves of student-led "gay-straight alliances" and "queer-straight alliances", calling them "highly politicized ideological clubs which seek to cure society of 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism,' and which accept the idea that all forms of consensual sexual expression are legitimate. The view of sexuality that they espouse is not Catholic."

Walt couldn't agree more, but wonders if Bishop Henry sent a draft of his pastoral letter to the Gay Mafia within the Vatican for approval or correction. Probably not.

You don't think there's a Gay Mafia at the Vatican? Read "A 'gay lobby' at the Vatican? One cardinal says it's real, and Pope Francis is responding", posted on the Catholic News Agency website 13/1/16. Walt expects that the Holy Father's "response" will be the same as it is to other crises in the world, the Faith and the Church -- confusing, tepid and ineffectual.

Song for the Christmas shopping season (updated)

I'm pretty sure we ran this last year we ran this last year, but Ed. is curled up in the corner with a jar of jellied gin, so I can't persuade him to look. Anyway, Agent 6, who sent this to us, tells us that it's been updated. Rerun or not, it's worth listening to.

Vocal by Carrie Rinderer, with the ACLU (American Christian Life United!) choir...

Please, dear readers, take the message to heart. 

And don't be afraid to wish everyone 

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

"We're Vikings! We don't hire Christians!"

Meet Bethany Paquette, a clean-cut, outdoorsy girl with a love for camping, river rafting and suchlike pursuits. She's also a self-proclaimed born-again Christian, and has a degree in biology from Trinity Western University, a Christian university in Langley BC. According to Amaruk Wilderness Corp., a packager of wilderness tours, being a Christian isn't the kind of thing they want to see on the résumé of someone who'd like to work for them.

Ms Paquette applied to work for Amaruk's Canadian operation guiding tours in the Great White North. She was shocked to receive an e-mail from Olaf Amundsen, the company's HR thingy, rejecting her on the grounds that she wasn't qualified and "unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want."

Apparently Mr. Amundsen had heard that all TWU students must agree to a covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage, under pain of possible expulsion. That covenant has led to an ongoing controversy over the university's law school -- see footnote below -- since the busybodies in the human rights industry contend that TWU discriminates against the LGBT "community". So, according to the perverse "thinking" of progressive and fair-minded people like Mr. Amundsen, that makes it OK to discriminate against those old-fashioned and narrow-minded Christians.

We shall see. Ms Paquette has filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Oh the irony! She told CBC News that the series of e-mails she received from Mr. Amundsen "really hurt me.... I did feel really attacked on the basis that I'm a Christian. My beliefs have developed who I am as an individual, but they don't come into play when I am doing my job."

Apart from defending "the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want", Mr. Amundsen wrote, "The Norse background of most of the guys at the management level means that we are not a Christian organization, and most of us actually see Christianity as having destroyed our culture, tradition and way of life."

Ms. Paquette replied defending her faith, saying "your disagreement with Trinity Western University, simply because they do not support sex outside of marriage, can in fact be noted as discrimination of approximately 76 per cent of the world population!!! Wow, that's a lot of diverse people that you don't embrace."

And she signed her e-mail, "God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them." It clearly irritated Mr. Amundsen, who wrote back, describing himself as "a Viking with a Ph.D. in Norse culture. So propaganda is lost on me."

Footnote: If you think it's hard for a Christian to get hired as a river rafting guide, try getting called to the bar (admitted to the practice of law) in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Lawyers in those provinces -- many of whom are secular humanists and/or, errr, non-Christians, have been besieging their law societies with demands that graduates of Trinity Western's law school not be admitted to the profession, because, errr... well... they're religious! See articles listed on the CBC News Topics page for Trinity Western University and "Queer students campaign against Christian law school".

Book review: Pat Buchanan blames Churchill (et al.) for both World Wars and the decline of the West -- an argument worth reading

Western civilization is dying! That's hardly an original thought. For the last half-century -- since the flourishing of flower-power and antiestablishmentarianism in the `60s -- many learned and thoughtful commentators have written variations on the theme. Leading the way was James Burnham, whose Suicide of the West (1964) has pride of place on Walt's bookshelf.

Beside it will be placed, very soon, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, by Patrick J. Buchanan (Three Rivers Press, 2008). Walt is awarer that any mention of Mr. Buchanan is met with snorts of derision from the liberal establishment and their lickspittle lamestream media. But there is no denying that he is an educated and thoughtful man, a keen student of history, whose insights, however contrarian, deserve consideration.

In this monumental and provocative history, the author argues that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen -- Winston Churchill first among them -- the horrors of two world wars might have been avoided, and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of hundreds of millions under the iron boot of Communist and Maoist tyrannies might never have happened, and Europe's central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Walt has just begun reading the book -- it takes me time to get through the books I buy [He moves his lips when he reads. Ed.] -- and, right at the beginning of the Preface, found an analysis worth posting here.

All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away.

In a single century, all the great houses of continental Europe fell. All the empires that ruled the world have vanished. Not one European nation, save Muslim Albania, has a birthrate that will enable it to survive through the century. As a share of world population, people of European ancestry have been shrinking for three generations. The character of every Western nation is being irremediably altered as each undergoes an unresisted invasion from the Third World. We are slowly disappearing from the Earth.

What happened to us? What happened to our world?...

Somewhere in the last century, Western man suffered a catastrophic loss of faith -- in himself, in his civilization, and in the faith that gave it birth.

That Christianity is dying in the West, being displaced by a militant secularism, seems undeniable.... But there is no dispute about the physical wounds that may yet prove mortal. These were World Wars I and II, two phases of a Thirty Years' War future historians will call the Great Civil War of the West. Not only did these two wars carry off scores of millions of the best and bravest of the West, they gave birth to the fanatic ideologies of Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, and Fascism, whose massacres of the people they misrules accounted for more victims than all of the battlefield deaths in ten years of fighting.

Walt recommends Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, if only for the Preface and Introduction -- all ye know and all ye need to know.

Bill O'Reilly's latest "book" disappoints

Let's get a couple of things straight. I like Bill O'Reilly. I watch The O'Reilly Factor and enjoy seeing him expose the hypocrisy and barrenness of the the "secular progressive" agenda. Watching him skewer the Prez before the Superbowl was a treat.

You may take from this that I agree with Mr. O'Reilly's point of view on matters political, social and religious. You would be right. (So is he. So am I.) What I wish, however, is that he would restrict his "bloviating" -- his word -- to the airwaves, and leave the polemical writing to someone else.

Why? Because, sadly, Bill O'Reilly is no writer. For him to tout his latest opus, Keep It Pithy (Crowne Archtype, 2013), as "a literary highlight reel" is just wrong. It could be called a book by virtue of being printed on paper and bound in a hard cover, but it is not literature. I'll give him "highlight reel" though, for the "book" is really a collection of snippets from his TV scripts and transcripts. He shares with "my pal Charles Flowers" credit (or blame) for the compilation of the print equivalent of a TV "clip show".

A better compiler or editor might have attempted to impose on the collection some order or coherence. As it is, Mr. O'Reilly covers all the ground from abortion to [Ed., please insert a noun that begins with "Z"], in the zigzag fashion of a drunk wending his way home from the pub. He goes from "a little manual for dealing with the opposite sex" (pp. 102-104) to an argument against the death penalty (pp. 105-106) and onward to how to create your own "No Spin Zone" (pp. 106-109). The transition from the the first topic to the second is handled in that one-liner beloved of stand-up comics, "But, more seriously..." The ellipsis is his.

The ideas are there, all right, but they are neither original nor well-expressed. One wonders if Mr. O'Reilly's thinking is any deeper than shown by such profundities as:
- "Bottom line: Terrorist killers and those who support them are evil. Period." (p. 54)
- "The more stuff I have, the more stuff I want. And so I looked around and saw that everyone else was the same way. It was not until I had a few things that I noticed how this works. The material stuff is addicting!" (p. 57)
- "Why is there so much drug and alcohol abuse in America today? Simple: Alcohol and drugs make huge profits for legal and illegal organizations." (p. 60)
- "Here's the takeaway: If you are after success in America, substance abuse can be your downfall." (ibid.)

How's that for in-depth analysis? I've seen deeper puddles on sidewalks after a summer shower in Arcadia FL! And Keep It Pithy is full of that kind of pith. There's a fair bit of vinegar too, but the whole effect is like listening to a junior high school valedictory speech.

I am a social conservative, a religious traditionalist, and a foe of secular humanism/progressivism and political correctness in all their forms and guises. But I do spend time reading and thinking about issues such as same-sex "marriage", the campaign against public expressions of Christian Faith and the failure of Western foreign policy.

Sometimes I write about these things. So do thinkers who can write much better than I...and much, much better than Bill O'Reilly. Keep It Pithy makes me long to read the deep and well-articulated thoughts of Enoch Powell, or, closer to home, William F. Buckley Jr. If it's a compilation you're after, I recommend Freedom and Reality (a collection of Enoch Powell's speeches: Arlington House, 1969) and/or Quotations from Chairman Bill (self-explanatory: Arlington House, 1970). Both volumes occupy places of honour in my working library here at my cabin in the woods. As for Keep It Pithy, I wouldn't give it shelf space.

Sad footnote: Whatever happened to Arlington House? From 1964 to 1988 it was a publisher of jazz discographies, as well as conservative and anti-communist books. It is now defunct, but you can probably find the titles recommended on Amazon.

Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!

The proposed Charter of Québec values has rung the bell of the lamestream media and the chattering classes, both in la Belle Province and in TROC (The Rest of Canada). Those calling it "racist", "anti-Muslim", and "unhelpful" -- you know the list of epithets -- include the Federation of Québec School Boards, the association representing the province's health care industry, and even the Québec Bar Association, which says the Charter will certainly be challenged in the courts.

What's really causing those who celebrate diversity to soil their silkies is the possibility that the Parti Québecois -- presently a minority government -- will call a snap election with the Charter (and only that) as the ballot question. Latest polls put the PQ in first place (ahead of the Liberals), with 36% of decided voters likely to back them. If polling day results reflect those numbers, the PQ would be returned with a majority.

Why? Because the real people of Québec -- even in the "culturally diverse" Montréal region -- overwhelmingly support the proposal. On Monday, a Léger poll found that that 60% Québecois back the Charter. Among the crucial francophone voters, that number rises to just short of 70%!

It's real people -- like the Pineault-Caron family, from the Saguenay town of Sacré-Coeur -- who are speaking out against religious and cultural "accommodation", meaning the stealthy Islamization of their heretofore white Christian society. The video of part of their testimony about the upsetting sights and sounds of Islam they suffered during their travels in Morocco and Turkey — and their conclusion that it is "unthinkable" to allow people in such "disguises" to roam around in public in Québec — became a YouTube sensation, registering over 300,000 hits so far.

Some Québecois see the charter as little more than an electoral ploy. The pundits and "progressive thinkers" of the anglophone media accuse the PQ of playing the "politics of division", to get back the francophone vote they lost to the Coalition Avenir Quebec in the last election. If that's the plan, it's working; the Leger poll says support for the CAQ is down 10 points from the 2012 election.

What about a court challenge, if the Charter is enacted? For the liberals and diversity-lovers, the wish will almost certainly be father to the thought and grandfather to court challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such action would bring the whole issue of diversity and "accommodation" not just to the Supreme Court of Canada (ultimately) but to the attention of the real people in TROC. According to Walt's Canuck agents, there are a great many -- outside of Toronto, the font of all evil -- who would be happy to see a similar law in force all over the Great Not-so-white North.

Further reading on WWW: "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do"

VIDEO: Culture clash! Québécois uncomfortable with Muslims importing their customs to Canada

The Québec National Assembly's Committee on Institutions has now begun hearings on the province's proposed Charter of Québec Values. If passed into law, the Charter would affirm the secular humanist values of "modern Québec" and severely restrict the religious and cultural "accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities.

For example, the Charter would ban the wearing by public servants of overtly religious symbols, particularly headgear such as turbans and hijabs. See "What Québec's new Charter of Values will and will not do".

The proposed Charter has been denounced by the usual suspects as racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, ŷada yada yada. It can certainly be seen as blowback against political correctness, multiculturalism and the "celebration of diversity" which the Canadian government keeps saying is good for the country. The Bloc Québécois government itself has warned the vizmins that they'd better accommodate themselves to the values of their adopted country, not the other way around. See "Accept Québec values, black PQ minister warns immigrants".

The hearings now being held in the provincial capital are an opportunity for everyone -- not just the usual coterie of pundits, politicians and other "experts" -- to express their opinions. Even ordinary people are allowed to speak. Three such "real people" appeared on the 16th. Here's a short video of the testimony of Geneviève Caron and Claude Pineault, telling the commission about their experience travelling to Morocco and Turkey, countries that have a large Muslim majority.

For those who have difficulty understanding Québec French, Ed. has posted (below) a transcript of M Pineault's remarks, from Hansard, the official record of the proceedings. We'll add a précis, in English, below the video.



Recounting her visit to a mosque in Morocco, where she was asked to remove her shoes, Mme Caron said she reluctantly gave up her footwear, following the customary Muslim practice, only to find women and men praying on their hands and knees in separate quarters of the temple. "I remained really marked by this," she continued. "I got back on the bus and said, 'Could this be? Praying on all fours on a carpet?'".

M Pineault, her husband, spoke about visiting an open-air market in Tangier. While looking for souvenirs to buy, he had his pocket picked by two people who were wearing some kind of religious headgear. "Who was under these disguises? Women? Men? I don’t know." he said. "What I do know, is that it’s unthinkable to allow people to walk around in Quebec, in the streets, in public places — really anywhere besides homes and private places — with such disguises."

Bernard Drainville, the minister responsible for getting the Charter through the National Assembly, replied that many Muslims who come to Québec integrate quite well. He told M Pineault that he didn't want to send the message that people from other countries are a menace to Québec society.

The hearings continue.

Further reading on WWW: "Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!"

"Keep Christ in CHRISTmas" challenge

Ed. here. We were pleased (and a bit surprised) to see a large number of hits today on "Ben Stein talks about Christmas and God", which we ran just over four years ago. Evidently there are still many people out there who are sick, sore and tired of this "Happy Holidays" nonsense -- all part of the campaign of the secular humanists to remove Christian values from our society.

Just by coincidence, we received a press release from Coralie Graham, editor of the Fatima Crusader magazine. She challenges us to do what we can to keep Christ in CHRISTmas.

For some years now we have faced the tragedy of "those in command" taking God and prayer out of the schools, the communities and anything government-funded (with our tax money). In recent years we have seen that they have the audacity to separate "Christ" from "Christmas".

"CHRISTmas is no longer 'in'", they tell us. And for some, it's actually illegal! Who says so?! It’s time to say "Bah humbug!" to "Happy Holidays"!

What can we do about it? Let us challenge the world to stand up and be counted. Together, we can make a difference. Together, our voice will be heard and heeded.

I have seen a few wonderful people out there promoting CHRISTmas — but they can’t do it alone. In the last couple of years flash mobs have gone into “Happy Holiday” malls to sing CHRISTmas carols. Videos on YouTube got millions of hits. There’s a clue: millions are paying attention. We are not alone!

There are so many ways you can participate in the “Keep Christ in CHRISTmas Challenge”, using whatever means God has given you.

Say "Merry Christmas!" and wish a Happy HOLY Christmas to everyone you meet, regardless of whether they say "Happy Holidays" or not.

When in the malls and stores, pretend you see friends a distance away and shout "Hey, Merry CHRISTmas!" I actually did this and, yes, there were a handful of people who looked for a straight jacket. But more people got the point. Strangers smiled, some actually chuckled and as they passed me, and made a point of saying loudly and clearly, "Merry Christmas!"

Here's another idea: a prize for the Best Home Nativity Scene.

If you belong to a group, or have been blessed with a little extra cash, sponsor a contest with a nice prize — maybe a Nativity Scene - for the most inspirational Nativity Scene outside a home in your community. I did this some years ago and the response was heartwarming. It encouraged more people to publicly proclaim Christ on their property (seeing as it's not allowed on public grounds) and the winning scenes were photographed and put in the local newspaper.

Or you could organize a Keep Christ in CHRISTmas Essay Contest.

Post an ad in the local newspaper, put flyers up in store windows, on telephone poles, in libraries, in laundromats, or wherever, advertising a contest for the best essay on "What I will do to keep Christ in Christmas". If your budget permits, you could have prizes for different age groups.

Seek permission from your local school boards [Good luck with that! Ed.] and invite school children to participate. Get past the obstacle that the schools are "not allowed" to do this by telling them you are only advertising the contest open to those who wish to participate. We did this in our community and even some non-Catholic school teachers had their classes do essays as a project.

Don't be afraid to challenge the commercial stores.

Talk to managers and tell them that there is a growing group of customers who will boycott their store if they don’t stop boycotting CHRISTmas! Tell them you want to see "Merry Christmas" signs and displays, and that you represent the majority, not the minority.

Challenge the cashiers at the checkouts too!

Remember when there wasn't one checkout clerk who didn’t wish you "Merry Christmas"? Now they're told they're not allowed to say that. So they say "Happy Holidays" or just keep silent. You can see they want to express the Christmas sentiment, but know they may be fired if they do. What to do? Say loudly enough so the rest of the lineup can hear, "I know you are forbidden to wish me a Merry Christmas but I do wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Holy New Year!"

These are just a few of the Christmas challenges I have been involved in over the years. Other than contest prizes, you don’t need a lot of money to do these things. But you do need Faith and courage. For some, it’s not easy to speak out, but try it! When you do, the warm feeling you will experience in your heart and soul will be one of the greatest gifts God gives you this Christmas.

VIDEO: Canuck politico sends season's greetings to infidel atheists

In this morning's piece about Zwarte Piet (see below) Walt wished all the PC types a Merry Christmas. But I wasn't the only one sending out seasonal greetings to those who think Western religion and culture have no place in our modern secular society.

Brian Pallister is leader of the Progressive Conservative [sic] Party of the Canadian province of Manitoba. Last week he got scrummed inside the legislature building by blogger Natalie Pollock. She had the ole camcorder on while Mr. Pallister expressed his feelings for those who feel excluded by all this Christian talk about Christmas. Here's the video.



Reaction from the usual gang of progressive thinkers, secular humanists, atheists and other infidels was as swift as it was predictable. Donna Harris, president of something that calls itself "Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba" -- number of members unknown -- told the Winnipeg Free Press, "It was very judgmental. The use of the word 'infidels' is especially troubling and negative because there are many countries around the world where being a non-believer, or infidel, may possibly be a death sentence."

Fortunately for Ms Harris, Canada is not among those "many countries". [Which ones could she have meant? Ed.]

When challenged, Mr. Pallister stuck to his guns, defending his use of the word "infidel", which he said the dictionary defines as "non-believer." And so it does.

"I’m always disappointed when people misrepresent the meaning of the words. What I was trying to do there is include everyone in my best wishes over the holidays," he told a press conference this morning. He said he also regrets when his opponents misrepresent what he says. "That being said, I just ask that people in Manitoba ... forgive me at this time of year if they think that I have stepped on their toes, but I sincerely just meant to include everyone in my best wishes. That’s all."

Walt has obtained Mr. Pallister's e-mail address and will be sending him a link to this post, with my very best -- and very politically incorrect -- wishes for a MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Footnote: Mr. Pallister is the MLA for the provincial riding of Fort Whyte. Just a coincidence.

The last Christian nation in Europe?

If a country's identity can be seen in its declared faith and morals, and if that identity is to be found in its constitution, there are virtually no nations on earth which self-identify as Christian. Phrases like "one nation under God" have been deleted from most supreme laws in the name of secularism and political correctness.

One or two European countries -- Britain and Sweden -- have "established" (official) churches. But overt expressions of a nation's belief in Christianity are discouraged by the European Union, lest people of other religious persuasions should feel excluded. Case in point: Slovakia, which last June was told by the EU to take the images of Sts Cyril and Methodius off its coins.

Happily there is one prominent exception. Italian journalist Alessandra Nucci, writing in Catholic World Report, characterizes the constitution and guiding principles of Hungary as "everything the EU has labored to abolish".

In sharp contrast to current EU policies, Sr Nucci writes, Hungary’s fundamental law includes:
* the recognition of Christianity as the religion of Hungary’s people
* the protection of the right to life from conception
* the definition of the family as a unit based on male-female marriage
* the acknowledgment of parents’ rights
* the duty of legislators before God
* the ban on eugenics, and
* the definition of the nation in ethnic terms (albeit with protection for minorities).

According to the article, Hungary’s new constitution begins, "God bless the Hungarians". It acknowledges St. Stephen as the founder of the Hungarian, or Magyar, state as “a part of Christian Europe.” The preamble further celebrates "the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood".

Good for the Hungarians, I say! And shame on all the European politicans who disregarded Pope John Paul II’s reiterated call to fight, for a mention of Europe’s Christian heritage in the European Constitution.

Had Europe’s historical Christian roots been acknowledged in the EU’s founding documents, there would now be a solid foundation on which to base resist media and political pressure to adopt laws that fly in the face of Europe’s identity and tradition.

Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear

What's the difference between a hijab, a niqab and a burqa? If you're a woman working in any part of Québec's public sector, the answer is: none whatever. When you go to work, leave your religious headgear at home.

So says the Charter of Québec Values, introduced today by the separatist government of La Belle Province. Also verboten -- oops, défendu -- are yarmulkes, turbans and kirpans. The special underpants that religious Sikh men wear are OK, because they are not "overt religious symbols". By the same token, Christians can wear a small cross or crucifix, but not a large one. Small earrings and finger rings are OK too.

Ever since the gist of the proposed legislation leaked out earlier this summer, those who celebrate diversity and promote multiculturalism have been whining that the Charter is an attack on religious minorities, discriminatory, and (of course) racist. Their argument was helped by remarks made last week by Premier Pauline Marois, who said multicult was responsible for "bomb-throwing" in England, and that the wearing of the hijab/niqab/burqa by Muslim women is an act of submission.

Mme Marois kept quiet over the weekend, handing le micro over to one of her predecessors, Bernard Landry. Appearing on Global TV's West Block, M Landry said flatly -- in English -- that Québec is not a multicultural society, and doesn't want to be one! Multicult, he said, was imposed on Québec, which continues to reject the idea to this day.

“You [the rest of Canada] like multiculturalism, go on,” M Landry continued. “My prediction is that within some years you will regret that attitude, but it’s your problem.” Wow! The ghosts of Charles DeGaulle and Enoch Powell could be heard applauding.

Poor Len Canayen wants to explain something to all the champions of multiculturalism and human rights industry types. The Charter of Québec Values is not about promoting Christianity and/or putting down non-Christian minority religions. The politics of the Parti Québecois is and has always been secularist.

The PQ was born out of Québec's "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, which slammed the door hard on the values and teachings of Holy Mother Church, which had long dominated the Québec society. The PQ is by nature leftist and "rationalist", the antithesis of the conservative Union Nationale and Libéral parties it displaced. The values which its proposed Charter enshrines are not those of true liberalism -- such as freedom of religion -- but those of secular humanism, man-centred, not God-centred.

Religious Québecois should, according to the principles of the Faith, oppose the new Charter. But the religious -- Christians or otherwise -- may, sadly, be in the minority. The proposed legislation is a clear winner in public opinion polls, being supported by those who feel, like Bernard Landry, that the waves of immigrants coming into the province must be "managed" and made to accommodate themselves to mainstream Québec society, rather than the other way around.

That is the real intent of the Charter. It has huge support from Québecois of all parties because they think that they will no longer have to look at legions of people walking down the Main attired in veils, turbans and funny hats. And that may be right, but not because the Muslims, Sikhs and Jews will conform, but because they will head west to the city where multicult is king, namely Toronto. Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government is already planning to widen the 401.

Further reading: "Multiculturalism: a failed experiment?"

"'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell"

"Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration"

Québec premier denounces multicult, hijabs and too much "accommodation"

Pauline Marois, the first female premier of Québec, has spoken out strongly against bending over backwards to accommodate the beliefs and practices of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into the culture of their adopted countries. In an interview with Le Devoir, she called out multiculturalism for violence and "bomb-throwing" in the UK. That kind of thing, she said, is reason enough to push ahead with her government's planned "Charte des valeurs québécoises" ("Charter of Quebec Values").

Mme Marois told the Montréal newspaper that secularism measures contemplated by the Charter will be phased in over a few years. The measures include a ban on the wearing of religious costumes or symbols -- such as yarmulkes, hijabs or large crosses -- by staff working in any "public workplace". That would include government offices, schools and hospitals. The usual suspects are of course outraged by enforced secularism, which they call racist, discriminatory, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, yada yada yada.

The premier conceded that the French model of secularism "isn’t perfect", Le Devoir reported, but she said that "in England, they’re knocking each other over the head and throwing bombs because of multiculturalism and nobody knowing any more who they are in that society."

Poor Len Canayen says... Wow! Someone noticed!

Mme Marois also said that wearing a hijab can be seen as a "form of submission", and that she feared daycare workers, teachers, and others in positions of authority could (by wearing religious attire) incite impressionable children to practise religion.

Len thinks this would be offensive to Catholics if there were any religious teaching in "Catholic" schools, but that seems not to be the case any more. No, not even in Québec. There are (practically) no more religious sisters and brothers. The dire dearth of vocations is one of the poisoned fruits of Vatican II.

However, in the so-called "public" schools there are lots of religious... religious Muslims, that is. Perhaps it is the Muslims and Jews -- not Christians -- who are the real targets of the Charter. We shall have to study the wording very carefully when it is published later this month.

A draft version leaked in the media reportedly proposed a ban on religious clothing for public servants. Polls suggest the idea of restricting religious garb is quite popular in Quebec, and the second-place PQ has seen a bump in the latest polling.

West trending to secular dictatorship, says Orthodox prelate

Once again one has to wonder if the Consecration of Russia has taken place, so that the promised conversion of "that poor nation" is happening before our eyes. Certainly the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church are bucking the European and North American trend away from Christian values. Walt wrote about this last month in "Does Russia Duma's political incorrectness mean the Fatima prophecy is being fulfilled?"

Now we have a revealing report from the Russian news agency Interfax, quoting Metropolitan Hilarion, the Orthodox Church’s chief ecumenical official, as saying that "secularization in disguise of democratization" is leading Western nations toward totalitarianism.

"This powerful energy today strives to finally break with Christianity, which controlled its totalitarian impulses during 17 centuries," said the prelate. The secularists are striving, he continued "to set up an absolute dictatorship that demands total control over each member of society. Don't we move to it when 'for the sake of security' we agree to obligatory electronic passports, dactyloscopy [fingerprint identification] for everyone, and photo cameras occurring everywhere?"

Metropolitan Hilarion was also strongly critical of the efforts of the progressive thinkers and their propagandists in the lamestream media to "make immorality normal". He gave the example of the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in France. The French socialist government "consciously and demonstratively ignored demands of people and used tear gas to disperse them."

In an article in Pravoslavnaya Beseda, the metropolitan wrote, "Nowadays [the] state sets a principle of secularity, independence from any outside authority that is authorized to point out to violations of morals or rights."

The "outside authority" is, of course, the Church, which western governments now believe -- virtually without exception! -- should have no voice, let alone influence, in affairs of state. No, not even in Ireland or Italy. Only (perhaps) in Russia.

Don't put saints on your euros, Slovakia told

You don't have to be Slavic to know about Saints Cyril and Methodius, but it helps. Cyril and Methodius were brothers, born in Thessalonica (in modern-day Greece) in the 9th century A.D. They became missionaries bringing the Gospel of Christ to the peoples of eastern Europe, particularly Moravia and Pannonia. Through their work they influenced the cultural development of all Slavs, for which they received the title "Apostles to the Slavs".

The Carpathian Basin, in which Cyril and Methodius travelled and preached, includes modern-day Slovakia, where the saints are highly revered. That's why, when Slovakia became a separate country and joined the euro zone, its government decided to honour the saints on its coins.

Sadly, the Slovaks are being made aware of the doggedly secular humanist policies of the European Union. The European Commission -- the bureaucrats in Brussels -- has now ordered the National Bank of Slovakia not to mint new euros that would feature images of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.


Each member state within the European Union has the authority to mint its own versions of the euro, incorporating its own national designs. But the European Commission ruled that the Slovakian design, going back over 1100 years, violates the EU principle of "religious neutrality" -- freedom from religion.

The controversy over the Slovakian coins is the latest in a series of disputes over the role of Christianity in the European identity. See "A More Secular Europe, Divided by the Cross", from the New York Times.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI frequently observed that the shared Christian culture is the foundation of European identity, and without that common culture the European Union will be bound only by shifting economic interests. But is the European Commission listening? Errr, no.

Does Russian Duma's political incorrectness mean the Fatima prophecy is being fulfilled?

Astounding news from Russia. The Duma -- the lower house of Russia's parliament -- has flown in the face of all that's politically correct by striking not one but two blows at the secular humanists, LGBT "rights" promoters and other "progressive thinkers".

Yesterday the Duma passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend "religious believers". Most Russians who are "believers" are Russian Orthodox Christians, but the new law (once approved by the Senate and signed by President Putin) would presumably cover Jews, Muslims and followers of other faiths.

The law follows the imprisonment of punk rockers Pussy Riot for desecrating an Orthodox cathedral by performing an anti-Putin protest in February 2012. Two band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are currently serving two-year jail terms for the offence.

So that's a good bit of pushback for Christians (and others) who feel that they're being belittled and demonized by the lamestream media and other "Forces for Progress" in the Western world.

Russian "gay rights" activists also have reason to feel dismayed. On the same day as the pro-religion bill was passed, the Duma also unanimously approved a law imposing heavy fines for providing information about homosexuality to people under 18.

Under the new law, private individuals promoting "homosexual behaviour among minors" face fines of up to 5,000 rubles (US$155) while officials risk paying ten times that amount. Businesses and schools promoting the LGBT agenda -- whether under the guise of "sex education" or otherwise -- could be fined as much as 500,000 rubles!

Although homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993, anti-gay sentiment is running high. A recent poll found that nearly half of Russians believe that the gay and lesbian community should not enjoy the same rights as other citizens.

Walt wonder why this is. Why is it that the Russians are embracing new laws (and old beliefs) which the Western media tell us are backward, anti-progressive, and contrary to Everything that's Right and Good in our wonderful New Age Society?

Our Lady of Fatima warned us that if Russia was not converted (by Consecration to Her Immaculate Heart), its errors would spread throughout the world. And so it would appear to those "Fatimists" and others who have studied Our Lady's prophecy.

Some Catholics believe the Consecration has been done, and that the fall of Communism represents the promised conversion. The "Fatimists" say this is not so, that the Consecration has never been done publicly, by the Pope in union with all the bishops, as the Blessed Virgin asked. But if that's the case, how should we understand what's happening in Russia today?

Our Lady of Fatima also said that once Russia was converted, that nation would become the instrument by which the rest of the world would be converted to the Christian Faith. Traditional Catholics take that to mean to the Catholic Faith. But, given the diabolical disorientation of the mainstream Church today, perhaps that Faith is to be found elsewhere.

Footnote and WOW! Walt is not imagining the "diabolical disorientation" referred to in the previous paragraph. Just today we have a report from AFP that Pope Francis himself confirmed the existence of a gay lobby within the Roman Curia.

The Vatican's Chief Flak-catcher, Father Federico Lombardi, said he had "no comment" on anything the Holy Father might have said in "a private meeting". And that's all ye need to know.