PQ Wolves Want A Vote On Eating Anglo Sheep For Dinner


And so all things come to pass.

Thankfully, the most repugnant thing in Canada today has come to pass, at least for the time being, as the Quebec PQ Government, headed by socialist xenophobe Pauline Marois, heads to the polls on 7 April.

Marois has declared her Government is fighting against corruption left behind by the Liberals, which is ironic given the Charbonneau Commission will cease hearings for the duration of the election.

Continue reading

Rebelling Against A Red Media


Keith Topolski looks at how Rob Ford can admit to drug use, yet retain steady approval as Toronto Mayor.

Basic human psychology tells us that people don’t like to be wrong. They don’t like to be told they’re wrong, either.

In 2010, the city of Toronto was a basketcase because it was being used to create a socialist utopia. As Kelly McParland in the National Post writes:

Voters were fed up with eight years of financial profligacy by a left-wing council that treated the city like a cookie jar they could use to finance personal fantasy projects. Grass roofs, bike lanes, taxpayer-financed self-glorifying retirement  parties, legal crusades on the public dime to defend the wounded feelings of oversensitive councillors, an arrogant union environment in which labour bosses assumed they could have their way if they simply issued enough threats.

 Consequently, the mainstream residents of Toronto (that is, anyone whose politics are to the right of Karl Marx) elected Rob Ford as Mayor.

It is worth remembering that, when he was elected in 2010, Rob Ford’s rather questionable personal behaviour was put out for all to see and, yet, he still pulled 47% of the vote, ahead of the preferred candidate of the progressive establishment, who had a spotty record when it came to spending public money.

I raise this because it goes to the heart of why Ford was elected and why progressives despise him with a hatred rivalled only by the intensity with which Fairfax loathes Tony Abbott.

See, Rob Ford is a fiscal liberal in every true sense of the word. He went after the union movement and pulled them in to line. He repealed a $60 car registration tax implemented by the left. He subcontracted out half the city’s garbage collection. He declared Toronto’s transit an essential service, which, under local laws, transit workers were banned from going on strike.

It’s enough to make any conservative shed a tear of joy. And, of course, enough to make any genuine progressive apoplectic.

Which explains why the progressive media (Sorry for the tautology) have made such a big deal out of going after Ford, and why the rest of the media just don’t get the whole debacle.

To properly understand where the concept of Ford Nation comes from, all we have to do is simply look at the electoral map from Rob Ford’s 2010 victory.

As you can see, The pre-1997 edition of Toronto was Marrickville on steroids. However, in 1997 the old Toronto City Council merged with surrounding councils to form a megacouncil which takes in almost all of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Since then, it has been the progressive Marrickville type issues which very few people have time to worry about (And which they wouldn’t care about even if they had the time) dominating inner Toronto, and more mainstream issues, like roads, rubbish, childcare and taxes, which dominate Ford Nation in the suburbs.

This divide has motivated the inner city to try and take back ‘their’ city, and their media arm has pursued Rob Ford to hell and back. I can’t put it any better, so I’ll let Michael Coren of the Toronto Sun say it:

It says a great deal, however, that a mayor of Toronto with more hidden skeletons than Hannibal Lecter can still run the city most efficiently and far more economically than a leftist predecessor who was a squeaky clean gentleman. It’s that, of course, that so irritates the grimy coalition so enraged at Ford.

Contrast this with the rather softer reception Justin Trudeau has had since he admitted, almost proudly, that, as a serving Member of Parliament who is sworn to discharge his duties in accordance with the law,  to puffing on a joint in breach of the law.

No, Justin gets off easy because he’s part of the progressive love-in. Speaking of love-ins, Justin’s old man, Pierre, Canada’s most famous ex-PM, was no slouch in that department, but everyone thought that was adorable for some reason.

No, judging from the coverage of other scandals, it seems Rob Ford’s real crime has been to be a politician who preaches the virtues of small government, and also delivering on a smaller government.

This is where Ford Nation’s loyalty should end, though.

Ford has delivered what he said he would. Surely, now, is the time to let him go.

Well, actually, no. This is simply the Pauline Hanson phenomenon repeating itself.

When Hanson first came onto the scene, she outlined a philosophical framework which was, save for one or two observations about affirmative action, overwhelmingly out there.

Instead of go after the policies, Labor went after the person. And conservative Australians, who had some sympathy for Hanson’s arguments but not enough to vote for her, were pushed into her corner in order to defend her from the bullying of the big bad leftie.

This is exactly the reaction that Ford Nation is having in defending a man who has, really, behaved in an indefensible manner.

The political apparatus working against Rob Ford even includes the Toronto police chief, who made comments which, if were made about any private citizen, would immediately create grounds for mistrials until the apocalypse.

Federal Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair is even trying to link Ford to Stephen Harper over this episode, simply because all conservatives must now be crack smokers if one of them is. Can’t see why that argument wouldn’t stand up.

So it has come to pass that Rob Ford, a man who should now be in rehab and addressing his considerable personal problems, will continue as Mayor, in a diminished capacity, while the leftist media use him for target practice.

I have always believed that voters can forgive most things in politicians, but never hypocrisy.

However, Rob Ford continues as Mayor with the blessing of, what should be, the very type of conservative voters who would hound a drug addicted hypocrite from office.

This is what happens when a broad movement, in this case the Toronto leftie elite, treat average people with contempt.

If the anti-Ford brigade are to have any chance of stopping Rob Ford, incredulously, being returned as Mayor next year, they must ask themselves, in the manner of Michael Sheen’s portrayal of Tony Blair, “How much Why must do they hate us if they like this lot guy more?”

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

The Power of the Parti Quebecois Compels You!

FrontKeith Topolski examines the latest bout of xenophobia to spew forth from Quebec.


The most memorable line from the classic film Forrest Gump was about a box of chocolates being compared to life. The second most famous line, to my mind at least, was ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’.

 The Government of Quebec, headed by the famously anti-anything-that-isn’t-French Pauline Marois, recently demonstrated it’s intellectual bankruptcy by finding a way for a province in one of the strongest Western economies, indeed global economies, to shed 30,000 jobs in a single month.

 Now, the non-stupid response would have been to try and deregulate, maybe cut taxes, open up the economy to business. Nice try, this is the Quebec Government we’re talking about after all.

 No, THEIR response was that the problems are all caused by those evil God-believers, Allah-believers and, well, believers in ANY omnipotent being which has power over us.

 The best way to rescue an economy that makes Greece look stable? “..ban veils, kippas, turbans and other symbols from government offices, hospitals, schools and any other place that receives public funding”! Isn’t it obvious?!

 Of course, Quebec geared up for this attack on freedom of expression by banning the clearly performance enhancing turban from all soccer matches played within Quebec. Well, maybe not performance enhancing, but we can’t have a show of cultural diversity, so there!

 Well, actually, Pauline Marois claims that Quebec is a vibrant, tolerant province and, in order to protect that diversity, it must suppress that diversity from the public square. I kid you not, to protect religion, the Premier of Quebec says it must be suppressed.

 In suppressing religion, some have argued that a discussion needs to be had over the promotion of religion within the public space. This is a legitimate debate, but the Quebec Government decided to skip around that point because, well, the Quebec Government’s house is just a special exemption to this cause, while its employees are not, ok?

 This brainless act by Parti Quebecois has even been attacked by the teacher’s unions, who have stated that they will support any teacher sacked for wearing a religious icon, on the basis mainly that the Government are a bunch of filthy hypocrites. Freedom gets a run in there somewhere, sure, but hypocrisy is the main beef.

 Perhaps the union might like to make the point that, should this law be passed, Quebec might also run into a small problem of having a lack of luxury items like doctors and nurses.

 Whoops, the Government clearly didn’t think of that, so maybe they might allow for a little bit of leniency in some areas of life, like those pesky doctors and nurses who don’t do anything important. However, with all these exceptions, it will be a great way to create an extra 30,000 jobs in the bureaucracy to deal with the ‘administrative chaos’ this would cause.

 This attack on public employees, not because of their performance, but because of their religion smacks of the most flagrant sectarianism one could possibly come across, and it is quite right that people living in Quebec should challenge the Government on the question of whether the Government views certain citizens as being ‘Quebec’ enough.

 Of course, identity is a huge issue for Federal NDP leader, and Quebecer, Thomas Mulcair, whose opposition to these new proposals is due to religious discriminationinfringement on freedomslack of tolerance the possibility of targeting Muslim women.

 Newly elected Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, also from Quebec, also took the chance to condemn the laws. Such condemnation from Non-Quebecers (!?!) led to a demand from Bloc Quebecois leader Daniel Paille (whose party is travelling so well, their own leader doesn’t have a seat in Parliament) to allow Quebecers to have their own discussion on the laws. All those Albertans (commonly referred to as Canada’s answer to America’s deep south) like Trudeau and Mulcair getting in the way must really peeve Quebec.

 Of course, when a real Albertan, like Muslim Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi, calls the charter what it is, it’s all a conspiracy by the ‘pathetic anglo media’ to portray Quebec as a province that is intolerant of the other. Yeah, like the Anglos from outside Quebec are the only people calling this Government on its bigotry.

 However, some are Quebecers are simply giving up. English school enrolments are dropping so fast the system is in danger of collapse, Universities and families of returned soldiers are under attack, and we’ve already touched on the 30,000 jobs gone in July alone.

 What is most galling about this is how, if such an attack on a religious or ethnic minority occurred elsewhere in the Western world, it would be called out for the bigotry it is. And it did and it was.

 The Government of Quebec likes to declare itself a tolerant nation (yes, Quebec is apparently a nation, although how it squares that away with claiming Canadian equalisation payments is beyond me), full of diversity, but it doesn’t like that diversity being on display. However, perhaps we have misjudged Ms Marois’ intentions, so we’ll let her speak for herself. So, what does Ms Marois want to say, directly, to the minorities and believers of Quebec?





I figured as much.

(DISCLOSURE: While baptised a Catholic, I now identify as agnostic).

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

English Speakers Not Welcome in English Speaking Nation


Keith Topolski discusses how being an upstanding citizen is being turned into a crime in Quebec.

Ever since the French and English fought over the new continent actually discovered by an Italian, there has been tension in Quebec over who is dominant: Anglophones or Francophones.

Although it has long been established that, for the Anglos, Quebec is the one place in Canada where you are not in the majority on this question, it has not been until recently that Anglophones have been made to feel unwelcome in their own homes.

Bill 101 has been law in Quebec for many years, and it designates that French shall be the predominant language in Quebec. No complaints so far.

However, with all the good intentions of preserving a piece of Canadian history, Quebec went too far by instituting the language police. Lest this site be accused of discrimination by Dear Leader Marois, the Office québécois de la langue française, to be precise.

The role of this office (Stasi might be a more appropriate term) is to ensure that all business conducted in Quebec is done in the official tongue.

This has included, in the past, efforts to demonise Anglophones whose only crime has been to give English and French equal billing.

This carries within it a debate over official bilingualism and whether one official language should have right of way over another official language. That’s a debate we can have another day.

What is more disturbing is that there needs to be a set of police on the beat, telling people what language they can and cannot speak.

Indeed, the new Parti Quebecois Government is introducing legislation to the Quebec Parliament, known as Bill 14, which would, among other things:

… amend a host of Quebec laws, including the Charter of the French Language, the Quebec Human Rights Act, provincial immigration legislation, municipal charters, the Quebec Labour Code and the Educational Childcare Act. It would oblige businesses with more than 25 employees to operate in French (previously, the requirement applied only to companies with more than 50 employees). It would make it more difficult for Francophone students to attend English colleges. And it would make it harder for municipalities whose anglophone population falls below 50% to continue providing services in both languages.”

This is an unambiguous effort to drive Anglophones out of Quebec, along with anyone else who has had the misfortune to not be born a native Quebec Francophone.

This clear effort at playing ethnic wedge politics is a bit rich given it is the Parti Quebecois who are waltzing around comparing the rest of Canada to Nazis.

Now that the Quebec Government has set about cleansing itself of English businesses, it has moved on to Anglophone Universities, with budget cuts which do not apply to Francophone Universities. Education cuts can be debated without rancour in mature forums, but when the cuts apply only to Anglo establishments and not Franco ones, it gets beyond the pale.

These cuts are especially interesting given these evil Anglo institutions turn out role models so unfit for Quebec society that they became Parti Quebecois Cabinet Ministers.

This is on top of cuts which target primary/elementary schools, so that Quebec can remove such treasonous troublemakers as children of returned Canadian soldiers.

These attacks on Anglophones even stirred concern among a minority of the Francophone population, who believed the cuts had gone too far.

That minority was then, however, and this is now. Even just a few weeks down the track.

Now it is an invasion of Italian restaurants which has the Quebec Stasi up in arms, for daring to publish the word ‘pasta’.

I kid you not. PASTA is now the target of the Quebec language police.

This expose of the neo-fascist enforcement of language laws has divided the hardcore sovereigntists in Quebec. On the one hand, some are saying they will ‘review’ the enforcement procedures, while others complain it is more Quebec bashing.

Finally, perhaps finally, the may be an opportunity for reason to prevail in this debate. Oh, yes, I do get the irony of wanting reason to prevail in a debate of language identity when issues such as health, education, law and order and the economy take a back seat for the duration of the journey.

Quebec has often set itself up as the protector of all that is good about the French presence in Canada, and to hell with anyone who gets in their way.

For many years non-Francophones have been complaining about how they have been getting so badly screwed.

Well, some Anglophones won’t have to fear that any more given that the Office québécois de la langue française have now targeted sex aids for the wrath of the language police. Yes, if you want to drop your pants and do what comes naturally, Quebec’s language police want to have a word with you first.

For such an embarrassing overreach of Government authority, is it any wonder when people compare Quebec to a socialist dictatorship?

From education to food to your bedroom, there isn’t a place that Quebec’s language cops won’t go to ensure your cultural and linguistic purity.

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

Quebec: Where it’s cool to be racist


Keith Topolski explains how Quebec's public discourse is founded on discrimination.

A long time ago, in a land far far away, a red cross and a white flower did battle over a piece of snow covered land.

 In non-fairytale speak, a couple of hundred years ago, England, surprise surprise, handed France another military defeat by taking over what is now Canada.

 However, the English never really finished the job and allowed the little pocket of French resistance to set themselves up as they pleased, provided it was within an acceptable framework. IE accept English dominance, and we won't put your heads on pikes.

 This was a mutually beneficial outcome, and today we have the province of Quebec in the nation of Canada.

 Except Quebec really isn't part of Canada, whether it be culturally or economically speaking.

 With the exception of the genuinely bilingual province of New Brunswick, Canada is split in three: Anglophones, Francophones and migrants.

 Canada has always prided itself on being accepting of migrants. That is, Canada minus Quebec.

 You see, as part of the 2012 provincial election in the dole bludger province of Canada, it seems it is acceptable to deride foreign born candidates for being so, all but demand the eradication of all languages except one and boss around small business owners for having the temerity, the audacity, the sheer arrogance to commit the heinous crime of saying hello in French AND English! Oh the pain, the pain of it all!

 What is most embarrassing about this, however, is not the focus on insignificant issues like language laws when Quebec's economy would have to climb three or four rungs up the ladder to find itself in the toilet, or even the incessant demands from a province which demands more and more Federal money while demanding more and more autonomy.

 No, what is most embarrassing is the double standard in the racial and ethnic bashing that is taking place under the guise of 'cultural protection'.

 The leader of the opposition, Pauline Marois, even had a crack at the horrific news that there were parts of Montreal inhabited by people whose first language was not French.

 Here in Australia we have had a journalist declared a criminal because he dared to ask questions which might have offended some people, in some people's minds, under some interpretation of the law.

 Yet, in Canada, the alternative premier of the nations second largest province can run campaign slogans which make Pauline Hanson look like Malcolm Fraser, and it's all acceptable.

 Oh, and I haven't even got to the banning of all religious icons, save for the crucifix in the 'National' Assembly.

 The tone of the election has become so bitter (unless you're a Francophone, in which case it's a rosy future for you, madame et monseuirs), that premier Jean Charest has led a chorus of non-Parti Quebecois politicians to say that they would never take non-Francophone voters for granted.

 However, when these parties have the opportunity to call Marois out for being a few sandwiches short of a picnic, they instead attack each other. Attacking bigots goes down badly in Quebec if the bigot does, indeed, parlez francais, you see.

 Trivial little things, such as the right to petition the Parliament, are unimportant unless you speak French in Quebec apparently.

 But the exception is made, all because the poor old Quebec Francophones are a minority in Canada.

 The Calgary Herald asked its readers to imagine a scenario:

Imagine if an Alberta politician campaigned on the need to ban French on signs outside of stores in this province, or at least to have English twice the size of French. Imagine also if she demanded that businesses with more than 10 employees enforce English as the lingua franca of the workplace.

For good measure, imagine if the Alberta politician also demanded that new immigrants to the province educate their children in English, and no other language. Then think about the reaction to a proposed “secular charter” bill that would restrict the ability of public servants to wear “conspicuous religious signs,” but would make an exception for the crucifix. Then consider the reaction to a party campaign video that went so far as to highlight a cross to further make the point.

Yes, if the same thing happened anywhere in the western world, we would have an endless array of human rights lawyers wheeled out to campaign for the rights of the oppressed, declaring 'insert offending plan here' to be the greatest injustice since the Spanish Inquisition.

 But it's ok in Quebec, because those evil English speakers are the devil's spawn I tell you!

 Let's pause for a moment. What would happen if it wasn't about those filthy Anglos. What if a party leader urged Quebec residents to conduct themselves more like Asians? You know, work hard, honour the family, etc. Etc.

 Yes, he is accused of, get this, 'junk populism'.

 Junk populism! In a province where whacking those evil foreigners is as common as taking the bus to work in the city! Well, that's when university students aren't protesting a $1 a day fee increase.

 You can't expect too much, though, when the debate over the replacement for the coach of the Montreal Canadiens NHL team didn't centre around whether he could actually get the team to the playoffs or not, but rather whether he spoke French.

 It's not good enough to justify such clear and badly disguised racism as a minority speaking out.

 The irony is that, in a small part of Canada, where the so long picked on minority is now in a majority, they are attempting to disenfranchise, eliminate, remove, expunge those who do not conform with the norms of those with newfound power.

 A wise man once claimed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And it is hard to imagine a more corrupted public discourse right now than that of Quebec.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

How the Left is Roasting Free Speech

Front Keith Topolski examines how one fast food outlet stood up to leftist elites and exposed the left's inner dictator.

In the past, to be branded chicken was to have your courage brought into question. Perhaps now to be branded chicken should mean that your courage is unquestioned.

American chicken outlet Chick Fil-A has either found itself the target of either a vicious smear campaign by progressive whingers or exposed itself as a Christian fundamentalist cult, depending on who you listen to.

What exactly created this furore? Chick Fil-A owner Dan Cathy had the temerity, the spite, the vindictiveness to, wait for it… oppose gay marriage!

As you will ascertain by listening to the interview, Cathy may have sailed close to the wind by talking about shaking fists at God, but otherwise he made no outlandish remarks.

Now, you would think (Which immediately precludes many on the left) that something may have twigged in the minds of the neo-Communist crowd when they realised sometime in the last 66 years that, unlike other businesses, Chick Fil-A remained closed on Sundays.

However, whingeing Socialists is nothing new. We live with them every day. What makes this issue different, though, is that elected officials are now making efforts to shut down development opportunities for Chick Fil-A because they don't like what Dan Cathy said.

Chicago Councillor Joe Moreno, supported by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, has declared he will oppose any DA's which come before Council from Chick Fil-A.

Now, socialist politicians from Chicago having stupid ideas about building things is nothing new.

Similar pronouncements have come from, surprise surprise, Boston and San Francisco.

However, never before has a political movement, so out of control and full of its own self importance, sought to restrict business opportunities based on an individual's political beliefs.

Where the new Stalinist movement goes off the rails, however, is that they have left behind some of their progressive allies. Allies who actually appreciate the dangerous precedent being set by restrictions on freedom of speech.

I tell not a word of a lie when I tell you that the New York Times and even the American Civil Liberties Union have declared their support for Chick Fil-A.

Thankfully, we are finally seeing a handful of those on the left appreciate exactly what these restrictions on freedom of speech mean.

If we can restrict the speech of people opposed to gay marriage in the north, what's to stop a Council controlled by supporters of traditional marriage refusing DA's to businesses which declare their support for the gay community? After all, if politics is cyclical, wouldn't conservatives eventually stand a chance of getting into power again? (How silly of me, socialists always favour a one party state)

Socialist dictators don't just reside in Cuba or Vietnam. Right now, they reside in the White House and The Lodge, and even on councils determined to socially engineer their own communities. We know that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and more people should understand that sometimes vigilance is telling the Government to back off and only do what it is legally entitled to do.

If private operators conducted themselves like Chicago Councillors, there would be an outcry from the left. It is time we raised the same sort of hell.

Indeed, conservatives far and wide have flocked to Chick Fil-A, but this needs to become more prevalent.

Only by removing politicians who overstep their mandate can we have a Government we can trust. When Governments become bullies, people must stand up for themselves. When they do not, they become oppressed.

A world without freedom, after all, does seem rather fowl (sic).

(Disclosure: I am undecided over the issue of marriage equality)

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

George Jonas: Our one-night stand with freedom

 FrontAs the west slowly but surely turns over what last remnants of freedom exist to the new dictatorship of the latte elite, one wonders where freedom went, what happened to it, and why.

However, we should ask ourselves whether the west ever truly embraced freedom, or whether the French revolution merely marked one unelected mob of elitist snobs taking over from another.

This piece in the National Post by George Jonas considers this very point.

So, are we throwing freedom away, or did we never even know freedom to begin with.

I'll let you decide.

I wrote in a recent column that individual liberty diminished during the last half-century while state intrusion into people’s business and private affairs increased. A reader demanded examples. This intrigued me. The growth of the administrative state in the last 50 years has been no less noticeable than, say, advances in medicine. Yet if I had written “medical know-how has advanced since the war” I doubt if any reader would have demanded examples.

I guess that’s because medical advances are welcome, but increased government and decreased liberty aren’t. Many are bothered by decreased liberty, but those who like government — yes, there are such people — worry that it’s not increasing quickly enough. Why, it’s scandalous that anyone can still get a canary without a licence.

We in the West are gung-ho to export democracy, but sometimes it seems we’re keen to ship it overseas mainly because we’ve not much use for it ourselves. We go through these Mao-jacketed phases when we export democracy and import tyranny. Perhaps before exporting democracy wholesale, we should try it at home.

All right, this is just a wisecrack, but what comes next isn’t. We went from pre-democracy directly to post-democracy, leaping over democracy on the way. In 18th-century France, after removing the King’s head from the body politic, the revolutionaries replaced it with their own. Liberty’s children began building their brave new world by turning Reason into a deity. That’s when the state turned into a secular theocracy, worshipping shibboleths of its own making as though they were divine revelations.

Contemporary “politically correct” democracies do likewise, missing only the actual figure of a scantily clad Goddess of Reason. Short of that, modern Western societies worship their own ideologies with a theological rigidity, often accompanied by legal sanctions reminiscent of Saudi Arabia.

When it comes to our ideas of blasphemy, we can be as unbending as any Wahhabi sheik. Only our punishments are milder. We don’t chop off the hands of university presidents who offend our state religion of feminism; we merely send them into the outer darkness. (The chattering sound you heard a few years ago was Harvard president Lawrence Summers gnashing his teeth.)

Aren’t Western societies still freer than outright theocracies or dictatorships, like Cuba or North Korea? Of course they are. Are they free, though? Not really. They aren’t free, not just compared with some mythical absolute, but with their own past.

The world had a one-night stand with freedom. She came in the late 19th century and went in the early 20th. Even the citizens of semi-constitutional monarchies, such as Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany, were freer in the pre-World War I era than the income- and consumption-taxed inhabitants of the European Union are today. They were certainly freer in terms of individual expression, enterprise and mobility than the photo-ID’d, hate-crime-muzzled, gun-registered, dog-tail-length-regulated, smoke-freed and body-searched citizens of the interventionist democracies are in our times, Canada included.

Examples? How many do you want? In the narcosis of “progress,” the liberal state clings to its dogmas, sacrileges, holy things and taboos. It guards them as jealously and enforces them as rigidly as the Taliban guards and enforces its version of Islam. Maybe it doesn’t enforce them as cruelly — maybe.

Exaggeration? You decide. In the year 1300, a period we call the Dark Ages, a pig was tried for blasphemy in France. In the year 2000, 200 years into the Age of Enlightenment, on the threshold of the 21st century, in the United States of America, the authorities charged a six-year-old boy with sexual harassment for kissing a six-year-old girl.

True, in the Dark Ages few were scandalized; in the Age of Enlightenment, there were many. The pig faced the death penalty if convicted, while the six-year-old didn’t — perhaps I should say “probably didn’t” because who’d predict what people who charge six-year-olds with sexual harassment may do. Nor was this a unique event. Some years later in Brockton, Mass., another six-year-old was suspended for touching a classmate’s skin in violation of the school’s sexual harassment policy. No charges were laid, but the school principal notified the police, the Department of Social Services and the District Attorney’s office. No, he didn’t contact the United Nations for some reason. Later the boy’s parents sued and the school district settled for an undisclosed sum.

While this is a happier ending than registering six-year-olds as dangerous sex offenders, it illustrates the neo-medieval ambiance of the liberal-fascist state. No doubt the expression will offend some who have no trouble practicing liberal-fascism, but are too sensitive for the word. In democracy-exporting countries there’s usually a berth for them in the sheltered workshops of human rights commissions that continue to offer safe environments for the fragile psyches of liberalism’s Gestapo.

“Enough, Jonas!” My classics master has always been a calming influence and now I hear his voice. “Settle down. You’re such a simian. Remember, temperance is a virtue; temper is a vice.”

“Please, sir, they demand examples, sir…”

He must be gone, for there is no answer.

When Did Fiscal Conservatism Die?


Keith Topolski examines how the world's longest serving conservative government has sold out-or been bought out.

With a provincial election looming by 31 May, Albertans are faced with a unique question: Will the Alberta Government become the longest serving democratically elected government in history?

The ruling Progressive Conservative party has ruled Alberta since 1971, and its predecessor, the conservative Social Credit Party, reigned from 1935.

Not for 77 years has Alberta been faced with a government that is not of a conservative persuasion.

But is that last statement actually true?

Last Thursday, the Progressive-Conservative Government, now led by Alison Redford, handed down its first Redford budget.

Ms Redford came to the leadership on the back of growing restlessness in Alberta with the big government ways of Ed Stelmach.

However, nothing has really changed.

The Toronto Globe and Mail has praised the Alberta budget as predicting 'a rosy future'.

As any true conservative would tell you, when the Globe and Mail starts praising you, your political hue more resembles a tomato than the ocean.

What is most telling about the key features of this budget is the lead paragraph from the Montreal Gazette, which speaks of 'no tax increases while spending a record $41.1 billion and recording the fifth consecutive provincial deficit'.
Note that the $41.1 billion in spending is a provincial record. Also note that this deficit is No. 5 and counting.

Redford claims that the deficit will be wiped out by an injection of funds from 'new energy revenues'.

However, the Gazette headline promised 'no tax increases'.

Now, either the headline is an out and out lie, or Redford is going to kick back and wait for the economy to grow so she can cash in on extra tax revenues, assuming it does continue to grow with the current Keystone pipeline drama playing out.

Now, one might argue that this is good politics, that letting the province grow out of deficit is a good thing.

Maybe, maybe not. However, what is not mentioned in these articles, but is left to the National Post to mention, is that the record $41 billion spend is an increase of 7% on the last Alberta budget, and Alberta now spends more money on each citizen than any other province, and even more than the Federal Government.

If you do the maths on this, if Alberta froze public spending for this financial year, the budget would have returned to surplus. No ifs, ands or buts.

This raises, therefore, the question of the ideas the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are now based on.

Is this really a party committed to conservative economic policies, or have the progressives hijacked the agenda?

This is a curious question because of the presence of primaries in Canada, combined with one of the longest surviving governments in history.

In Alberta, if it is blue, people vote for it. If it is red, people shoot it, politically speaking. Not since 1921, in fact, has Alberta had a Liberal Government (Liberal in the American sense).

This has not gone unnoticed by many in Alberta's less than sizeable progressive community.

Instead, progressives have now signed up to the Tories, not because they agree, but because they know the only way to be a politician with credibility in Alberta is to wear blue.

This hypothesis is often queried, but the numbers don't lie.

In the 2006 leadership race, the most economically conservative candidate, Ted Morton, polled 15,000 first round votes and 41,000 second round votes before being eliminated as part of the instant run-off.

Last year, the same Mr Morton polled just 7,000 first round votes, and last year featured just one economic conservative.

Credit where it is due to the left, they have infiltrated and succeeded.

However. This raises the question of political apathy on the part of Albertans. Given how strongly the PC party has dominated for the last four decades, what will it take for Albertans to change their government?

History is as important as ideology in this instance.

Throughout its history since 1906, Alberta has elected four governments.

No, that's not a typo. Only four separate governments have controlled Alberta over the last 106 years.

Henceforth, when Albertans decide to change their government, there needs to be a major problem for them to act.

Politically, though, as indicated at the last Federal election, Albertans are still attached to their conservatism.

Of the 28 ridings represented in Ottawa, only one is not blue.

So, what happens in there is no conservative alternative?

Well, one is created.

The Wildrose Alliance, headed by Danielle Smith, has almost moved itself into official opposition status.

It takes much searching through the history books to find a political party in any Canadian election which sat to the right of the PCs.

However, this is now reality in Alberta.

And this reality comes with a 'zero-budget' plan as espoused by the Alberta PCs, which has Smith and her classical liberals seeing red, no pun intended.

This 'zero-budget' system sees a budget built from scratch, each year, without any regard for spending limitations or deficits, although this deficit ignorance is not noted officially in the plan.

This is on top of some incredibly dodgy spending from the PCs.

I will let the article carry the words:

Earlier this month, cabinet ministers went on a taxpayer-funded tour to hear from Albertans at a cost of $100,000.

Tory backbencher Lloyd Snelgrove, long disenchanted with the direction of caucus under Redford, labelled the exercise a cynical photo-op and quit to cross the floor and sit as an independent.

That was followed up last week by a $70,000 taxpayer-funded Tory caucus retreat to a Rocky Mountain resort near the ski-getaway town of Jasper.

Critics, including the Wildrose, noted that Tory election candidates who are not in caucus were in Jasper as well. While those candidates paid their own way, critics said their presence turned the Jasper trip into a publicly-funded Tory party election readiness session.

Whether this PC Party situation speaks more of long-term governments or the merits of the primary process where 'recruitment' (Glorified branch stacking might be a better term) is indicative of a good leader remains to be seen.

However, what cannot be disputed, as written by Kelly McParland, is that 'The richest province in the country, which doesn’t need sales taxes because it has oil and natural gas, is running a deficit and siphoning money from its trust fund to pay for short-term spending bonanzas, with no guarantee the money will still be there down the road.'

Will the mix of social conservatism and economic socialism presented by the PCs triumph, or will the classical liberal, almost libertarian, policies, economic and social, of Danielle Smith win the day?

While most will ignore this election as just a small time provincial election, this could present a valuable case study into what people find more important in their politics: economic security, or social values.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.

Apparently Opposing the Left is now Corruption

FrontKeith Topolski discusses the latest victim of polictically correct defamation.

Not content with trying to ruin the lives of people in general with their levels of astounding incompetence, the latest target of the left is one of this nation's most respected individuals.

After stating the bloody obvious, Father Chris Riley has been accused of corruption by resident gibberers Xenophon, Wilkie and Tim Costello for, horror, daring to claim that extortion mandatory pre-commitment is not the correct way to go about helping people.

Now, although there is little to like about Peter Garrett, at least he had the decency to roll out constituents who supported this measure as a way to curb problem gambling.

Some may question my naivety in merely accepting that these constituents ARE actual gambling victims but, unlike the left, I don't demand tax audits on anyone and everyone before allowing them a say on any given subject.

I find this attack on Riley particularly distasteful, at least from Nick Xenophon, who hardly has a great record in dealing with matters involving religious organisations.

Now I myself am no fan of organised religion, but given Xenophon's quote about Father Riley buying the industry line and his comments of scientology as a cult, I have to wonder whether Xenophon isn't merely on a crusade of his own.

Wilkie, on the other hand, believes Riley has been influenced by donations to his organisation.

Horror of horrors, the clubs industry donates money to people who do community work. Stop the presses!

Wilkie would do well, rather than sending the thought police to investigate Father Riley, to trawl through the grubby deal involving Bob Brown and Wotif, where Brown is alleged to have acted corruptly in attempting to promote eco-fascist eco-tourist interests in exchange for dollars.

Further to this, Wilkie might care to explain rumours regarding his newly discovered sympathy for the mining industry on the back of this piece. Say what you like about Vexnews, but they rarely get it wrong.

If Wilkie, Xenophon and their anti-freedom cohorts are going to engage in grubby accusations of corruption, they might do well to be above rapproach themselves.

Chris Riley does more to help the underprivileged in our community than either Xenophon or Wilkie ever would have even thought of.

Oh, and while we're on the topic of people being hypocrites about others being fleeced, Tim Costello might do well to remember his beloved World Vision only uses fifteen cents in every dollar received in donations to help those they claim need assistance.

Putting the corruption charges aside, though, this is just another example of how the left seeks to stifle debate by attacking the man rather than the ball.

Every day, the left creeps forward in its attack on free speech, and every day we must fight to defend our freedoms.

Just remember, Hitler used the democratic system to get his way, and so are today's free speech fascists.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal executive and is currently studying towards a Bachelor of Communications.

If it’s good for Canada, it’s good for us

FrontKeith Topolski marks a great day for Canadian free speech.

We have recently seen the disgraces of the Racial Discrimination Act in prosecuting and, indeed, persecuting leading conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt for no other reason than he offended a few delicate petals by calling for an end to racism.

This law is clearly an attempt to shut down debate and needs to be removed.

And indeed, there is hope. And yet again, it comes from the brilliant conservative government in Canada led by Stephen Harper. Courtesy of Ezra Levant in the Toronto Sun, read on to see what is happening in Canada, and what should be happening in Australia.

For 34 years, Canada has had a disgraceful censorship law that violates our human rights.

In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act – an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.

The entire law is a corruption of justice – it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren't politically correct.

But the worst part is Section 13, the censorship provision. Section 13 creates a word crime – the crime of publishing or broadcasting anything that can cause hurt feelings.

Back in 1977, that law was focused on telephone lines and answering machines. But 10 years ago, it was expanded to include the Internet.

So it even covers things like whatever you post to your Facebook page. Section 13 says "it is a discriminatory practice … to cause to be … communicated … any matter that is likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt."

So if you publish anything on Facebook, or on your cellphone voice message, that might make one person feel bad about another, you've just broken the law.

Truth is not a defence to being charged with "hate" under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It's about whether or not you've offended someone or hurt their feelings.

Section 13 is an insane law. So un-Canadian, so contrary to our traditions of liberty that go back centuries, inherited from the United Kingdom.

It's no surprise that this law had a 100% conviction rate in Canada for the first three decades of its existence. This federal law was copied by provincial legislatures. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan all have censorship provisions, too.

I found out about this the hard way. In February of 2006, I published a magazine called the Western Standard. We reported on the major news story that month – riots around the Muslim world purportedly in response to some pretty banal Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. Those riots killed more than 200 people, and we wanted to show our readers what all the fuss was about. But a radical Muslim imam in Calgary named Syed Soharwardy complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

He said I violated his human right not to be offended. He wanted to ban the cartoons, and his hand-scrawled complaint even bitched about the fact that I dared to publicly defend my right to do so.

I laughed off that little nut-bar. I mean, get a life – you're in Canada now, no Saudi Arabia. But to my surprise, the Alberta Human Rights Commission took his complaint and ran with it.

The Alberta government, using its provincial version of Section 13, prosecuted me for 900 days, with no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers. It spent $500,000 prosecuting me, before dropping the case – and leaving me with my $100,000 legal bill. But sometimes freedom wins a round.

Last week, the federal justice minister, Ron Nicholson, stood up in the House of Commons and answered a question about Section 13. 

The question was about a private member's bill, put by Brian Storseth, an MP from northern Alberta. Storseth has introduced a private member's bill, C-304, to repeal Section 13. But private member's bills have little chance of passing without the endorsement of the government.

But Nicholson did endorse it. He called on all MPs to support it, too. Bill C-304, Storseth's bill, is now effectively a government bill. And with a Tory majority in both the House and Senate, this bill is as good as done.

No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No more persecuting their political and religious enemies.

This is the best thing the Harper government has done in five years. Freedom is on the march.

Keith Topolski is a former member of the NSW Young Liberal Executive and is studying Communications.