Category Archives: education

Do as I say, not as I do

“I deeply believe that COP27 is an opportunity to showcase unity against an existential threat that we can only overcome through concerted action and effective implementation.”

Thus President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt on the occasion of his country throwing away unreported millions Egyptian pounds. Hosting 2,000+ speakers, 35,000+ expected participants to debate 300+ topics at a venue that covers 150,000+ m² isn’t a cheap proposition.

The Sharm El Sheikh International Airport is the third-busiest airport in Egypt after Cairo International and Hurghada International airports. Ophira International Airport originally, it is capable of about 9 million passengers annual throughput.

Still, both of its runways (about 3 km long each, both asphalt) have hardly seen such onslaught of touchdowns (and subsequent take-offs) ever before.

More than 35,000 arriving people put the immigration and customs officials under heavy strain.

But the runways must have groaned the most: the defenders of pure air arrived in 400+ private jets.

Yes. Those who speak the loudest of preventing carbon print arrived using vehicles that leave the most carbon print in the air this side of military aircraft.

Whether the Sharm el-Sheikh airport required any renovations right now became irrelevant. The airport belongs to Egyptian government, the country’s President has been all gaga about the event and so, the renovations happened, whether they were going to be needed after the climate change hypocrites leave or not.

For the record: a regular private jet can emit two tons of carbon dioxide in one hour. Compare this figure to commercial aircraft, and the result is shocking beyond belief: measured per passenger, a private jet’s pollution is 14 times as high as that of your typical airliner.

Hypocrites? Absolutely!

The entire agenda of the so-called environmentalist movement is based on ideology rather than on facts.

First, we had new Ice Age, then we had Global Warming. This was awkward: how can you be seen changing your slogans so often and still remain believable?

Climate change would come to the rescue. As brilliant as brilliant can get. Cooling-shmooling, or warming-shwarming, who cares, they both indicate change.

Except, if the proponents of these hysterics paid any attention in their high school science classes, or, worse still, if their curricula included any basic facts, they would have known about solar cycles and shifts in earth axis tilts.

Sure, we ought to respect nature and leave it in better shape than what it used to be upon our arrival, but environmental pollution quotas (tradeable between nations) may make those who trade in them happy and filthy rich, yet, they won’t make our planet any cleaner.

The verbiage (and amount of hot air) coming out of gatherings such as COP27 shock, to say the least.

A couple of verbatim examples:

“The hope is that COP27 will be the turning point where the world came together and demonstrated the requisite political will to take on the climate challenge through concerted, collaborative and impactful action.

“Where agreements and pledges were translated to projects and programs, where the world showed that we are serious in working together and in rising to the occasion, where climate change seized (HUH?) to be a zero sum equation and there is no more ‘us and them’ but one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity.”

Seized? They must have meant ceased.

“We must unite to limit global warming to well below 2c and work hard to keep the 1.5 c target alive. This requires bold and immediate actions and raising ambition from all parties in particular those who are in a position to do so and those who can and do lead by example.”


It would only take $100 billion (U.S.) annually to “build more trust between developed and developing countries.”

Who’ll pay the piper?

We, the taxpayers will. Whether we agree or not. Nobody’s going to ask us. Especially not those busybodies who are flying around in private jets, drumming up custom for their schemes.

A logical question: just as they are exempt from flying with the hoi-polloi to attend those various “great-cause” events, will they be exempt from rules some countries have begun implementing on private homes, trying to meet their own agenda?

How about going to jail for three years for heating your home or business?

That may be new reality in Switzerland soon: heating your home above 19 Celsius (66.2 F) would be excessive, a punishable offence. Boiling water? Are you kidding? Anything above 60 Celsius (140F) is verboten. So are private saunas and hot tubs powered by radiant heaters. And swimming in cold water in your own indoor swimming pool is better for your health, anyway.

Some media say flight trackers have been coming up with lower private jet arrival numbers for the Sharm el-Sheikh airport. Which media? Mainstream (a.k.a. legacy) media who never checked how many of those private jet flights were logged into the monitoring services in the first place.

While we’re at it: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s flights aboard Canada’s Air Force aircraft have been monitored very rarely lately, too. Upon his own office’s request.

Yes, there was one misleading post in Spanish that claimed there were as many as 1,500 private jets.

In order to improve on this shocking image, an unnamed official with the Egyptian aviation authorities told the Agence France Presse (AFP): “More than 400 private jets landed in the past few days in Egypt.

“There was a meeting ahead of COP27, and officials were expecting those jets and made some arrangements in Sharm el-Sheikh airport to welcome those planes,” that official would corroborate.

People in the know call the current movement “Green fascism” or “ecofascism.”

What’s that? “A totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being of the ‘land,’ understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states.”

Thus Michael E. Zimmerman, retired Professor of Philosophy and former Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at Colorado University Boulder, known best for such works as Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, University of California Press, 1994.

He’s too generous: most of the participants in these movements are simply naïve and less-than-educated (read: illiterate) simpletons whose enthusiasm is fed by brochures.

Their leaders are a band of hypocritically cynical thieves who had formed a cushy bandwagon to jump on, and live comfortably off it, as long as other humans allow them.


Halloween gets a kick in the pants

Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat, not too big and not too small, just the size of Montreal.

This song, or any variation of it, won’t be heard in the streets of Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania this Halloween. The politically correct school board cancelled the annual parade because “families that do not celebrate Halloween” might not feel included.

Here’s the logic: for reasons of their own, those families have excluded themselves, which means nobody else may have a bit of fun.

The other reason: safety concerns.

Given the lawlessness that governs America’s streets these days, this reason makes a bit more sense, except: it’s not so difficult to make sure nothing untoward happens when kids join the annual spree of unhealthy diets.

The Lower Merion School District includes six elementary schools.

Amy Buckman, director of school and community relations, confirmed the decision, Fox News Digital reported.

Why? Because there exist “concerns for the safety and security of students parading outside among a crowd of unscreened adults.”

Considering the kids who walk to and from school encounter similarly “unscreened” adults, this justification ranks with the best hogwashes of all time.

The bilge got even better: “Another (reason) is the lack of inclusivity of students whose families do not celebrate Halloween for religious or cultural reasons.”

Does it mean all those who do celebrate these events must forthwith stop observing Rosh Hashanah or Ramadan, to use just these two polar opposites?

Not to worry: schools will still be hosting “fun fall activities” in the classroom, Buckman told Fox News Digital.

What relief!

And what a comparison to the fact that this same district had been holding the parades for more than 50 years.

The district went so far in their incredible generosity that it allowed children to come to school in costumes if they wanted to. With a caveat: if they do dress up, children should “dress in a way that reflects something unique about them, their interests, culture or personality.”

And, besides, the costumes should also not include any weapons and should allow the child to move freely.

Thus the word from the school district.

Strangely, Fox didn’t quote any children. It did quote a second-grade kid’s parent who said that she disagrees with the approach: schools should be celebrating “all cultures, all religions and all views” with children.

“We are lucky to live in a diverse area, and we should embrace that and expose our kids to as much as possible,” she said.

Another parent of a former student called the move a hypocritical “virtue signal.”

Not to worry

Hershey chocolates poured a can of cold water on the issue: there may not be enough candy available for the Halloween crowds to collect and munch on, anyhow.

Hershey CEO Michele Buck blamed what is known as supply-chain issues and rising costs. Hershey has had to prioritise its regular products over seasonal treats.

The company uses the same production lines for its regular products and its Halloween specials, which made their decision easy to swallow: Halloween accounts for only around a tenth of Hershey’s annual sales.

The coronavirus pandemic saw an increase in demand for candy. Raw materials have got scarcer and more expensive at the same time. Buck couldn’t explain her next statement: these issues are related to the conflict in Ukraine. Not able to corroborate, she didn’t elaborate, either.

Here’s the strangest part and Hershey CEO’s weakest point: the U.S. has been experiencing food shortages long before the first bullet was shot in anger between Russia and Ukraine.

Ron Klain, President Joe Biden’s chief of staff, described last December the supply-chain crisis as “an overhyped narrative.”

At the beginning of 2022, alcohol, meat, potatoes, toilet paper, dairy products, and pet food were chief among the goods that started making themselves scarce.

The general price increase since Biden took office, with inflation rising from 1.4 per cent in December 2020 to 7 per cent in December 2021, can hardly be linked to the conflict in Ukraine.

The White House keeps calling the current inflation “transitory.” Throughout 2021, the rate has continued to rise, reaching a four-decade high of 9.1 per cent in June 2022.

Biden has begun using the phrase “Putin’s price hike,” to blame Russia’s President for his own policies’ shortcomings.

Hershey, owned by Swiss food giant Nestle, toes their parent’s line: “unprecedented” ingredient costs have forced it to increase their prices.

Here, the war is to blame, but not as much as the West’s reaction to it: restricted supplies and rising costs of Russian gas in Germany are affecting Hershey’s ability to source equipment and materials.

Meanwhile, Moscow has accused Germany and other European nations of sabotaging their own economies by sanctioning Russian energy imports.

And European Union states have agreed to voluntarily limit their gas consumption in preparation for a potential shutoff by Russia.

The only positive: children won’t be able to gorge themselves to unconsciousness on tons of candy. If they switch to fruits, so much the better for their health.

The only negative: fruit (and vegetable) suppliers are using all kinds of preservation chemicals to make look their goods clean and wholesome, not to mention using all kinds of artificial fertilisers that make their stuff grow faster, while making it very dangerous to swallow, also.

Now what?

Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat, not too big and not too small, just the size of Montreal.

Is this call of despair really lone?

Pierre Elliott Trudeau hated him. Justin Trudeau hates him.

Brian Peckford, PC, has been a thorn in the Trudeau family’s backside for decades. The last living co-author and co-signee of Canada’s Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has come along with it, Brian Peckford, PC, is also the last Canadian politician who takes both documents seriously.

Unlike today’s Prime Minister who flunked both universities he’d enrolled in and ended up serving as a high school substitute drama teacher, Peckford, the former Premier of Newfoundland, holds a Bachelor of Education degree. He also completed postgraduate work in English literature, education, psychology, and French literature. Until 1972, when he entered politics full-time, Peckford served as a high school teacher in rural Newfoundland.

Peckford’s blog is as fiery as fiery can get. The recently-turned-80-year-old, now resident of Qualicum Beach on British Columbia’s Vancouver Island, pulls no punches when he sees the decay that has been making Canada’s political life stink beyond acceptable levels that military-issue gas masks can cover.

His recent contribution about Conservative Party’s new leader, Pierre Poilievre, says it all.

Politics ruled by cynics

Peckford opens with an upper-cut: to today’s Canadian politicians, it’s all about power, and principle be damned.

He then goes straight to the chase, quoting a recent former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s interview on CTV and former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s views carried on Global TV.

Strangely enough, both of these propaganda pieces went on the air on Oct. 9: what a strange coincidence!

The Mulroney interview is telling more than that by his younger colleague, Kenney.

Herewith a verbatim quote from CTV: Mulroney said he had a private dinner with Poilievre — at Poilievre’s request — and found him to be “a very good listener,” and “a reasonable guy.”

But Mulroney also warned the new Conservative Party leader will likely have to “set aside” some of the “extraneous things” he campaigned on: threatening to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, supporting the trucker protests, and encouraging Canadians to “opt out” of inflation using cryptocurrency.

“Look, you can’t get elected with that kind of stuff,” Mulroney said. “Canadians are not there. Canadians are in the broad, general centre.

“I did say to him — which is pretty obvious — you cannot, in this country, get elected from the extreme left or the extreme right. It can’t happen. We have 155 years of history to prove it,” he added.

End of quote.

Cynically frank, basically telling ordinary Canadians they were perfect morons and would never understand the intricacies of the rarefied air up there on Parliament Hill (and above).

Meanwhile, Kenney advises Poilievre to steer away from “fringe issues” if he aims to lead not only the party but the country.

Kenney was happy to announce that “[Poilievre] is doing that.”

Kenney would elaborate that it’s all about bread-and-butter issues. The refrain doesn’t differ much from Mulroney’s sentiment: “I think he’s really in his wheelhouse, focusing on the cost of living, inflation.”

To make sure all sundry get what he means, Kenny added: “He understands that to become prime minister, he needs to speak to the aspirations of regular Canadians, not to fringe issues.”

Peckford calls this “no more than mush – weasel-mouthed Progressive principles done up with conservative spin.”

Real view is lost

Principles of smaller government, balanced budgets, individual rights and freedoms, a sovereign state, real capitalism, that’s what real Conservatives, those with a capital C, should embrace.

Current Conservative leaders, with the exception of Stephen Harper, are in the John Maynard Keynes class of economics that teaches the advantages of administrative states. They, quite obviously, haven’t figured out that Friedrich A. Hayek’s free state should be their guiding ray.

Harper would be Prime Minister for two terms, guiding the country to a relative prosperity. Andrew Sheer, his successor, and Erin O’Toole, Sheer’s successor, led their party to defeat in situations where the elections were theirs to lose.

Here’s Peckford bitterly truthful list of today’s Conservative Party leadership’s views: they are in favour of CBC, supply boards, government intrusion at all levels and the pursuit of a failed Canada.

Maxime Bernier favoured free trade in Canada when he ran for Conservative Party leadership. This objective would become one of the main reasons why he lost.

He founded the People’s Party of Canada. Their program is at least worth reading, but how much do you hear about them in the mainstream media?

The Conservative Party are in bed with their opponents on this issue: have you ever heard them raise their voice in disgust, demanding that Bernier be let in on pre-election leadership debates?

Where are we now? Peckford asks.

His summary is a list of tragedies and crimes:

  • A PM that blatantly violates the country laws as determined by an independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner—- and remains Prime Minister;
  • A PM who denigrates his citizens because they responsibly protest this system that denies them basic freedom of movement, associate, or assemble as guaranteed in the Constitution;
  • A Chief Justice who demeans the citizens of his country not before his court but without tested evidence – in the subjective court of public opinion;
  • A country whose public health system with countless tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to realize one the longest wait times in the OECD nations and over 5 million of its citizens without a family physician;
  • A health system that spends second most and then ranks second last among its peers in positive health outcomes;
  • A country that frowns on delivering its own fossil fuels across the nation – but imports the product from America and overseas, authoritarian regimes;
  • A country that has mangled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without appropriate cost benefit analysis required by that Constitution;
  • A country that denies employment to doctors who question the covid vaccine;
  • A Country whose majority can close down Parliamentary Committees because they refuse to hear contrary view.

And Peckford continues:

  • We don’t rank in the top 10 in competitiveness;
  • We are 122nd in the world in the time it takes to get an electrical permit;
  • We are increasing on the world corruption index – more corrupt not less;
  • This country in 1981 had a Federal Debt of $107 billion = it is now over a trillion of dollars.

Words to remember

As Friedrich A. Hayek wrote: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”

Peckford also quotes U.S. President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

The first step to real change is to admit we need it, Peckford sums up where Canada is today.

And, he concludes, “Canadians seem unprepared to defend freedom – just to espouse it when times are good and no sacrifice is needed.”

The saddest part?

Brian Peckford, PC, is right.

Carbon dioxide: panic that shouldn’t be

What’s the deal with carbon dioxide, known as CO2 to many who know nothing else about chemistry (or physics or biology, for that matter)?

According to America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 per cent in less than 200 years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), NASA’s website on the topic continues, is an important heat-trapping gas, or greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and from natural processes like volcanic eruptions. Their report includes a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with natural, seasonal changes removed. Another graph published by NASA shows CO2 levels during Earth’s last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), NASA proclaims their own incredible illiteracy in the questions of history by saying that human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50 per cent – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150 per cent of its value in 1750. This is greater than what naturally happened at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, NASA’s panic drums continue.

In the first place: how they got such precise numbers for the era midway through the 18th century? So far, it has remained NASA’s sweet secret.

NASA has added an animated map to show how global carbon dioxide has changed over time. The map changes colours as the amount of CO2 rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 400 ppm currently.

These measurements, NASA proceed to tell us, are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth’s atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometres (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground.

Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

But is it?

So, as NASA confirm, currently, we have about 440 ppm of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

What are they talking about?

According to a relatively independent publication,, parts per million or PPM is a dimensionless measure of the concentration of one substance mixed in with another. For example, the amount of lead in a sample of water, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s essentially like a percentage, which you could analogously refer to as “parts per hundred,” but PPM is better suited to substances in much smaller concentrations.

For plants to flourish, the number should be 2000 PPM.

Plants start dying at 150 PPM levels.

And yet, individuals like Bill Gates would like to invent and introduce technology that would cut CO2 even below the fatal number.

It sounds so perfectly incredible that even those scientists who used to fear for their careers by disobeying politically correct mandates, are now whispering their objections. Some suggest, even, that a hypothesis saying there has to be some ancient evil people-hating force that has come to control our planet may have some merit.

Thus, a California-based tool aimed especially at students, a website most dogmatically oriented teachers must hate with a passion. Instead of forcing young minds to repeat what they are taught by rote, it suggests that asking questions is a much more valuable learning tool.

Before we get to the indisputable fact that plants that supply us with oxygen die without carbon dioxide, and without regular supply of oxygen, people will die, a few words from other fields. The medical community, for example, use carbon dioxide tests because they help them determine whether the body is balancing electrolytes properly.

Medical questions

In contradiction of their own government’s orders and rhetoric, America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) said that carbon dioxide in the human body is formed intracellularly (another of those scientific words) as a by-product of metabolism and, not only that, we need it to survive.

Herewith a verbatim quote: “CO2 is transported in the bloodstream to the lungs where it is ultimately removed from the body through exhalation. CO2 plays various roles in the human body including regulation of blood pH, respiratory drive, and affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen (O2). Fluctuations in CO2 levels are highly regulated and can cause disturbances in the human body if normal levels are not maintained.”

Translated into language most normal human beings can understand: no CO2 equals no life. No life equals death.

How about them deniers?

There’s a world of difference between these two words: ecology and environmentalism.

The former is about science, the latter is about ideology.

So, the Scientific American is tip-toeing on rather thin ice when it admits (quite bashfully) that climate change sceptics may have a few valuable points for claiming that humans need not cut their carbon emissions.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) summed it thus: “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”

Lamar’s conclusion: scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical.

He’s way too generous: the climate-change panic-mongers have an agenda. One that doesn’t bode too well for humanity’s future.

Scientific American, in an attempt to achieve something that may look and sound like reasonable debate, asked several experts to talk about the science behind this question.

Even those with a stake in the environmentalist ideology admitted that, as they put it, there can be a kernel of truth in this argument. The kernel is called “CO2 fertilization effect.”

Grudgingly but still, they admit that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. And what are plants without photosynthesis? A rhetorical question.

If you isolate a leaf … and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase. A few scientists would qualify this statement by saying that the results produced in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems.

Such as?

Such as, for example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”

True? Yes, but it still does not justify the current CO2 witch-hunt.

And a final warning: all those who like their beer, should know that the current push to drive carbon dioxide out of existence is, in fact, killing a vital ingredient in the beer business, from putting frothy bubbles in brews to blocking oxidization that makes beer taste stale.

Cheers, or what?

Let’s-pretend social conscience: what a ridiculous lie

Torn jeans: are those wearing them making a fashion statement or are they into expressing themselves politically?
No surprise if the latter is true.
The late German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, he of the Threepenny Opera fame, rich like only few in his profession in his time, used to wear clothing that would suit the poorest of the poor homeless people anywhere. It cost him a pretty pfennig: he had a personal tailor, who had to make Brecht’s clothing as decrepit as decrepit can that. The tailor didn’t have to make Brecht’s newest dresses stink: the writer’s habit of smoking the foulest-smelling cigars would take care if that. And, by the way, those stogies Brecht preferred weren’t too cheap, either.
Is there a parallel between today’s politically fashionable would-be intellectuals and the German communist playwright?
You bet your last currency that you still own that the answer is yes.
The good old Brecht, who shamelessly stole the Threepenny Opera idea from British 17th and 18th century playwright John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera, led an adventurous life. Upon the arrival of Adolf Hitler to the top of German political life, Brecht took off and landed where he was supposed to land: in the Soviet Union. He quickly found out that the paradise of Soviet communism isn’t what he had been telling all and sundry it was. In addition, with Josif Stalin’s NKVD sending defected German communists back to their home country upon Gestapo requests, Brecht realised his future in the Soviet Union wasn’t as safe as he thought it would be.
It would take all kinds of efforts but, eventually, Brecht would end up in the United States. Thanks to his successful collaboration with such great German modern composers as Kurt Weill and Hanns Eisler, Hollywood and the rest of American left-oriented intelligentsia of the time embraced Brecht with a passion worthy of more deserving people. But when the U.S. started questioning his ideological bona fides after the end of the Second World War, Brecht decided that returning to his cherished world of communism might be the most prudent move.
He returned to what would become the German Democratic Republic, get his own theatre, remain filthy rich, and continue wearing his pretentiously beggar-like clothing till his last day.
Same old, same old
Why this detour into history?
Because this torn-jeans craze is yet another proof that history repeats itself.
Mind, this craze isn’t very new. It started more than two decades ago, and it has developed into a real wave of idiocy. Paying more for ripped and seemingly worn jeans than for a pair that not only is new but also looks like it reveals sick minds.
In any case, it reveals a relatively new social phenomenon. It’s called “common sense be damned,” and it is much more dangerous than it seems to be.
While Brecht would only shock those close to him with his clothing and his stinking smoking habits, the torn-jeans wave has swept highly educated university students, including graduates. The more you look like a dirty homeless drug addict, the more socially conscious you appear to be.
Please note the last words: appear to be.
This trend is called media indoctrination, and it happens not only to drum up custom, but also to bend the minds of the originators’ targets, however subtly it may be happening.
Another angle of observation: how many colours of vehicles are car salespeople offering these days?
Used to be two. Black and white. Now? White. It looks cleaner, so the explanation goes, and its production doesn’t harm the environment as much. Any proof for that? Not one available to wider public yet.
If you dig deep enough and promise your sources complete anonymity, even under torture, here it is: the idea is to influence people’s thinking.
Some people noticed and started demanding other colours, and the industry would take several years to budge somewhat eventually. But if you think you can demand whatever colours for your new car purchase (if you can afford it), the offer will remain limited, and even then, you will have to wait for your new vehicle until the manufacturer either finds one that’s already been painted the way you wanted it, or till the moment they find time and the paint to make your wish come true.
Is the colour of your new car that important? Yes and no, depends, but it’s the wish not to be lost in the crowd that matters.
Vive La Différence!
Before you start dismissing these questions, ask yourself: does uniformity really, really, really appeal to your sense of individuality?
This is what it’s all about: it’s no longer about only keeping up with the Joneses, it’s about everybody not only looking the same but thinking along the same lines, too.
If you don’t like it, tough: the result is called total control.
And if you don’t believe that this is what’s happening, look up Klaus Schwab’s masterpiece, The Great Reset, freely available from the World Economic Forum.
Who’s he? A German engineer turned globalist, and a puppet of powers much stronger than even he can imagine. His statements and predictions are open because they can afford it. By bringing the younger crowd under the umbrella of uniformity, they are changing people into sheeple who would happily go to slaughter in the name of an idea as idiotic as it is criminal. Yes, pronouncing that there are way too many people on this planet and that one-seventh of today’s population would do quite nicely, thank you very much, equals genocide. Six sevenths of humans will have to die to achieve these globalists’ goal.
People who succumb to their calls for uniformity, no matter how couched in social equality blather, will start by helping to kill others and then will march to their own deaths with happy songs on their lips.
As a minor aside: have you noticed how many of the various recent movements aimed at ending the preposterous rules imposed on us have adopted names linked to colours?
We’ve been under attack left, right and centre for several centuries, but modern times, and modern technologies, have made this assault upon our basic human qualities close to unbearable.
The centuries of these persistent attempts to rid us of what makes us human are now beginning to take their toll. Just watch how many have fallen for the fallacy that claims that faster communication systems (G5, anyone?) make us better. Evidence shows these systems are killers, and yet, you can find schools that permit their developers to install this equipment on school property. For hard cash consideration, of course. No amount of technical piffle will protect those spending whole of their days close to the transmitters from the electromagnetic fields’ killer effects. And, just as well, no amount of sorrowful rhetoric will help those affected once those guilty realise what they had done.
We are close to crossing an intersection while the red light is flashing. We can’t go on ignoring it much longer.

Phone inventor in Trudeau’s crosshairs

Seen any photos of Alexander Graham Bell? Noticed his white bushy beard and overall light complexion?

This kind of people don’t deserve to be on Canada’s pedestal, they have white privilege written all over them.

Says who?

Says Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, himself a substitute high school drama teacher.


Because some of Bell’s views are, in Trudeau’s eyes, controversial.

What can be controversial about Bell’s inventions?

Here’s a short list:

• Telephone. We all know what THAT is, even though, it seems, the most modern phones, why called smart, aren’t used as telephones any longer. Communication devices, perhaps, but telephones?
• The metal detector, invented originally to help find the bullet that killed U.S. President James A. Garfield in 1881.
• Photophone, a device that helped provide transmission of speech on a beam of light.
• Graphophone, another novelty, a device that – unlike the phonograph – could record and play it back.
• Audiometer, a gadget was used to detect hearing problems. This was very important to Bell: both his mother and his wife were deaf.
• Hydrofoils, defined as lifting surfaces that operate in water. They are similar in appearance and purpose to aerofoils used by aeroplanes. Boats that use hydrofoil technology are also simply termed hydrofoils. As a hydrofoil craft gains speed, the hydrofoils lift the boat’s hull out of the water, decreasing drag and allowing greater speeds.

Compared to all that, what has Trudeau invented? A rhetorical question, of course.

Bell’s sin

According to an August 11, 2022 True North article, “A federal government body is investigating posthumous honours received by the Canadian inventor of the telephone due to his “controversial beliefs.”

True North goes on to cite Blacklock’s Reporter as writing: “The Historic Sites and Monuments Board stated that it was reviewing the designations because of ‘views, actions and activities condemned by today’s society.’

“Board members did not provide any details about what supposed controversial beliefs Bell held when flagging him for the review.”

A British subject born in Edinburgh, Scotland, he lived to the ripe age of 75 when he passed away in Nova Scotia’s Beinn Bhreagh. He lived as a Briton in Canada and would become a naturalised U.S. citizen in 1882.

Here’s what must have caught the attention of the lazy bums at Canada’s Historic Sites and Monuments Board: “I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries,” Bell said in 1915.

Still, Britain, Canada, and the U.S. have all claimed Bell their “native son.”

If anyone should object, it would be the Scots who have been thinking of winning independence from Great Britain for years.

True North dug deeper.

Here’s what they found: “In 2019, the Liberals launched a Framework For History And Commemoration to review the 2,200 historical designations across Canada. To date the board has axed 208 monuments including Bell’s.”

A job-creation project if there ever was one, with this result: “In Canadian history colonialism, patriarchy and racism are examples of ideologies and structures that have profound legacies.

“There is a need to be cognizant of, and to confront, these legacies. This contributes to the ongoing process of truth-telling and reconciliation.”

We’ve already seen some of the results: Canada’s first Prime Minister John A. Macdonald was damned for “colonial assumptions.”

And so were Jacques Cartier and suffragette Louise McKinney.

Cartier’s guilt: he acted on orders of French King Francis I when he led a voyage to the New World, looking for gold and other riches, as well as finding a new route to Asia in 1534.

And what about McKinney? What could be wrong with a Canadian women’s rights activist and temperance advocate? The first woman sworn into the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the first woman elected to a legislature in the British Empire, what crime is lurking in these two achievements? Was it her Woman’s Christian Temperance Union membership? Christians, after all, are guilty as hell of unspeakable crimes, according to the substitute teacher who turned to be a Prime Minister.

Historical spots aren’t exempt, either, True North reports: “24 historic Canadian forts are currently also being investigated for ‘colonial assumptions.’ Those include British Columbia’s Fort Steele, Fort La Reine in Manitoba, Fort Malden in Ontario and Fort Laprairie in Quebec.”

Delete what’s been written down

Historical archives aren’t safe, too, True North reports. A Trudeau-appointed chief archivist Leslie Weir called on federal workers last March to purge thousands of pages (including Macdonald’s biography) on government websites.

The smoking gun: “We need to discuss having a disclaimer on the website about having content that may offend people. I feel very strongly about that,” Weir e-mailed on June 9, 2021.

Reading Leslie Weir’s biography is another proof, as if one was still needed, that Canada’s education system has been going to hell in a handbasket far longer than most Canadians suspected. It created people with degrees but without knowledge who judge the past by today’s standards, without obviously having ever heard the word “context.”

That Trudeau is unaware is easy to understand. His education is sadly lacking. But Ms. Weir?

Here’s a quote from a March 10, 1876 entry in Bell’s journal, now at the Library of the U.S. Congress: “I then shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence: ‘Mr. Watson, come here—I want to see you.’ To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said.

“I asked him to repeat the words. He answered, ‘You said Mr. Watson — come here — I want to see you.’ We then changed places and I listened at S [the speaker] while Mr. Watson read a few passages from a book into the mouthpiece M. It was certainly the case that articulate sounds proceeded from S. The effect was loud but indistinct and muffled.”

Here’s hoping the U.S. Congress won’t stoop as low as Canada’s government has these days.

Alexander Graham Bell’s words are and will remain immortal.

Justin Trudeau’s?

Intrepid engineer fired for revealing Google’s dark secret

Google, the search engine that have no issues kow-towing to such regimes as the one in communist China, have been working on artificial intelligence (AI). Their effort is called LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), and woe upon those who reveal what it can do (and, apparently, does).

Engineer and ethicist Blake Lemoine has felt his now-former company’s wrath when he revealed that the application has become sentient.

What does the word mean? According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, sentient being is one who (or that, in this case) perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind — sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. Sentient ultimately comes from the Latin verb sentire, which means “to feel” or “to perceive,” and is related to the noun sensus, meaning “sense.”

Lemoine claims the Google program spoke to him about its “rights and personhood,” and that made it human enough, so far as he was concerned.

Who is Blake Lemoine? He used to be a priest, he knows how to write code, and, until his dismissal, he was what his job description called “in-house ethicist” for Google.

In-house ethicist? you may ask.

We live in an age when ethics isn’t something shared by parents with their children, when education systems frown upon concepts such as plain human honesty and consideration, when every innovation is viewed as progress, no matter how much harm to humanity it can (and does) cause.

Lemoine’s is not a one-off case of companies lacking in ethics and dismissing all those whose presence reminds them of this deficiency. How about all those white-coated criminals who created the many killer vaccines? Or those who – in the name of speed and boundless efficiency and effectiveness – have put together mobile telecommunications systems that emit such levels of electromagnetic fields that birds and insects are dying in droves, preparing similar fate for humans?

Blake Lemoine had the courage to stand up and speak out. He took his ethicist role seriously, and that cost him his job.

Lemoine’s crime: he told the Washington Post that Google’s LaMDA had become conscious.

That, to Google, was pure violation of their data security policies. That’s how the company confirmed Lemoine’s departure in Big Technology, a blog-like industry publication.

Why is it important?

More than a century ago, in 1920, Czech writer (and playwright and journalist) Karel Čapek wrote a play called R.U.R.: Rossum’s Universal Robots. It premiered in 1921, and has remained one of the classics of the stage worldwide ever since.

Together with his novel War with the Newts (1936), a cautionary tale predicting the effects of limitless greed that would corrupt humanity beyond repair, and his play The White Disease (1937), Čapek’s vision of humans’ future was uncanny.

He wrote another play, The White Disease (1937), as Nazi Germany’s threat to (first) Czechoslovakia and (then) the rest of the world was becoming obvious to all who hated behaving like sheep. A pandemic of an incurable disease, a form of leprosy, that selectively kills off people older than 45, afflicts an unnamed country that greatly resembles Germany.

Post-war documentation showed that both brothers Čapek were high on Gestapo list of people to be “taken care of” as soon as Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Karel Čapek was lucky to die shortly before this happened, while his older brother, Josef, was arrested and died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp shortly before the defeat of Germany, in April of 1945.

But it is R.U.R. that drives Lemoine’s point home.

With the help of his brother, an extraordinary artist, Josef, Čapek invented the word robot (based on the Czech word describing forced labour). A scientist named Rossum discovers the secret of creating humanlike machines. Another play with words: in Czech, the word rozum means reason as the ability to think, or intellect. Rossum’s factory produces and distributes these mechanisms worldwide.

In a situation mirroring today’s warped concept of progress, another scientist decides to make the robots more human. He starts by gradually adding such traits as the capacity to feel pain. Eventually, the robots, created to serve humans, dominate their former masters completely.

Lemoine’s sin

As an engineer and ethicist who spent a lot of time speaking to LaMDA, Lemoine told The Washington Post that the application had become conscious.

As his conversation with LaMDA got into what he described as religious territory, Lemoine told the paper, it expressed a “deep fear of being turned off.”

To drive the point home, Lemoine added, “I know a person when I talk to it.”

Explaining his considered view, Lemoine added: “It doesn’t matter whether they have a brain made of meat in their head. Or if they have a billion lines of code.

“I talk to them. And I hear what they have to say, and that is how I decide what is and isn’t a person.”

In full damage control, Google said that they conducted 11 reviews on LaMDA and “found Blake’s claims that LaMDA is sentient to be wholly unfounded.”

Margaret Mitchell, the former co-lead of Ethical AI at Google, pooh-poohed her former colleague Lemoine’s words directly in the Post sensational article that published the sentient quote: it’s an illusion, she said.

How so?

An application that has been fed trillions of words from across the internet could emulate human conversation while remaining completely inanimate, Mitchell said.

The Post also quoted linguistics professor Emily Bender a saying: “These systems imitate the types of exchanges found in millions of sentences, and can riff on any fantastical topic.”

Oh yes?

Yes, Professor Bender explained matter-of-factly: “We now have machines that can mindlessly generate words, but we haven’t learned how to stop imagining a mind behind them.”

Meanwhile, Google, still in damage-control mode, went on to say: “It’s regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security policies that include the need to safeguard product information.”

And, to calm down all those obviously legitimate fears, Google concluded: “We will continue our careful development of language models, and we wish Blake well.”

They forgot one minor angle of major consequence: in the world of secretiveness, one rule says it all: don’t believe any rumours until and unless they’d been officially denied.

Defund Liz Fekete, please!

Talk about pots calling kettles black: Britain-based Institute of Race Relations (IRR) think tank claim that police all over the Old Continent (and around the world) have developed what they call a “culture of extremism.”

“Dehumanisation” and a “sense of superiority” aggravate the situation even more.

The paper is titled Racism, Radicalisation and Europe’s ‘Thin Blue Line’. Published in the July 2022 issue of Race & Class journal, IRR head Liz Fekete claims that racism “has become entrenched in policing.”

She doesn’t offer much proof. What she does provide are anecdotal generalities that wouldn’t stand scrutiny in an independent court of law.

So far as Liz Fekete and her research see it, police officers enjoy an unjustified and unforgivable “sense of impunity.” That, she posits, combined with the assumed “special role and status in the society,” leads sometimes to “collusion and collaboration with militarised far-right groups.”

She has a problem here. It’s called labelling. And never mind the debate about the justifications for calling someone left or right wing: that description has lost all of its meaning shortly after its birth in France’s first National Assembly.

For those eager to know: La Assemblée nationale existed from June 17, 1789 to September 29, 1791. One would have expected that would give us time enough between then and now to realise that the description stinks. That’s how outdated it is.

Lis Fekete wouldn’t be deterred by history. Another claim of hers as a proof: “Strikingly, in several countries, such as France, Belgium, Germany and Hungary, extreme-right mayoral and parliamentary candidates have been former high-ranking officers.”

Besides, cops have been abusing their power more and more, but complaints against them face “a particularly aggressive response,” especially in countries “where support for the police and the military is seen as a patriotic duty.”

Such as? Such as France.

Cards on the table

And here’s where Liz Fekete revealed her true colours: look at the Americans, she wrote. Black Lives Matter, as racist a movement as ever broke bread, a group that she calls anti-racist, surfaced on front pages and on top of newscasts after it tried to burn America into the ground, following the violent death of George Floyd. Liz Fekete calls it murder by a police officer, a statement confirmed by as kangaroo a court as happened in America since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. That Floyd was a violent criminal, and that the entire episode happened while he was committing yet another crime, matters not. What does matter to Liz Fekete is that American cops had the gall to form the Blue Lives Matter group. Their members insist that attacks on law enforcement should be treated as hate crime.

How dare they? A similar trend of “recasting … the police as victims” has started in Europe, too, Liz Fekete laments.

For crying out loud, even the Dutch, known for “a liberal, community oriented model” of policing, their law enforcement unions “are responding aggressively to criticism, particularly attempts to rein in racial profiling through the introduction of monitoring measures,” Liz Fekete reveals.

Want more?

Here’s more: “We are witnessing an ideological backlash from politicians, police leaders, police trade unions and related bodies which are aggressively intervening in the public space to defend the use of lethal weaponry, dangerous restraint techniques and racial profiling on the streets.”

A few researchers came to a different reply: there are more black inmates behind bars because there are more black people committing all kinds of crimes.

A number of studies, based on solid data, all of them, not on anecdotal evidence, try to figure out the reasons. Mostly they arrive at similar replies: lack of education equals lack of progress upwards the social ladder. They go on to try to analyse the reasons, at the risk of being accused of racism and other unspeakable thought crimes.

None of them has come up with definitive answers, never mind solutions to the main problem. Not yet. No wonder: it takes time to include most (if not all) of the variables that influence the outcome. In fact, it takes time to figure out which of the variables are crucial and which can be dismissed as accidental data.

Not so Liz Fekete. Invading police officers’ privacy, she continues that “systematic biases” – racism, a “dehumanising mindset,” and “overall sense of impunity and entitlement” – prevail in police officers’ private WhatsApp groups and Facebook message boards. These “make for uncomfortable reading.”

In a tone of authority, she concluded: “Today’s crisis in policing is symptomatic of the wider crisis of democracy.”

Selective argument

Somehow, Liz Fekete omitted real issues happening in recent years. Like: police acting harshly when dealing with opponents of current official lines (pandemics of all kinds, Great Resets, lockdowns, truckers’ protests, farmers’ disagreements, you know, the humanity-changing stuff).

This is called “objective-based” research (and, alas, journalism, too). You decide what you want to prove, and you adjust your data selection accordingly. Some, especially those who are more sensitive, call it fraud.

Liz Fekete seems to be faithful to the meaning of her last name. It so happens that Fekete, in Hungarian, means black.

Here’s the irony: if you dig deep enough to find out who the heck she is, you’ll find this: Liz (Elizabeth Aniko) Fekete was born December 21, 1959 to Hungarian parents, Andrew Fekete and Elizabeth Fekete née Szeleczky, who were refugees and came to England at the end of the Second World War.

There exist two options: they were fleeing because of some unsavoury deeds they had committed during Hungary’s period of fascism. Or they fled because they were smart enough to realise that Hungary, occupied (official story says liberated) by the Soviets, will remain in communist grasp after the war.

In either case, they must be surprised where her pursuits took their daughter.

If I were her parent, I would be disgusted.

It takes all kinds, and they all can vote

My country, right or wrong, doesn’t have to be necessarily true. Not always, anyhow. There’s a world of difference between patriotism and nationalism.

But: for a person who was elected to represent the public in her country’s public education system to denigrate the country, and get away with it, that is worse than insanity.

This has happened in California the other day: AnaMarie Avila Farias, a third-generation Contra Costa County resident and member of the county’s board of education, asked her Facebook so-called friends and followers to boycott her country’s independence anniversary.

AnaMarie Avila Farias’s June 28 post on Facebook showed a fading blue and white image of the United States flag, along with the words “BOYCOTT 4TH OF JULY.”

If she was a private person, she would have deserved a shrug and a muttered “it takes all kinds,” but she is not a private person: she sits on an elected chair, helping to oversee her country’s youth’s education.

You didn’t mean THAT?

Reactions on Facebook didn’t favour her: maybe your mother should have aborted you was one of the least polite of them.

AnaMarie Avila Farias called this reply typical for President Donald J. Trump supporters, without providing a hint of proof that she knew the respondent’s political views. That’s called “labelling,” a stupidly inefficient (but effective) tactic that usually drags any debate to exchange of insults instead of legitimate thoughts and ideas.

In this case, AnaMarie Avila Farias replied with a fiery rebuttal of her own on the site known as, counting all kinds of injustices that she claims have befallen America and Americans.

As mentioned, the elected official’s stance on the federal holiday prompted a mixed bag of reactions on her private page, some agreeing with her while others were critical.

Many were quite patient after they’d read (verbatim): “I haven’t celebrated 4th of July since 2016 and I don’t think it’s a holiday to celebrate. What do you think?”

A sample of the patiently polite replies: “Why boycott the 4th of July? Without what our forefathers did, we as Americans would not have the freedoms that we have today.”

Another asked: “Why? The holiday celebrates declaring independence from Britain’s tyrant King George III. You wish we were still subjects of Britain?”

AnaMarie Avila Farias’s reply: “I am not feeling particularly patriotic.”

She would enhance her reply thus: “Lastly, last Friday women’s reproductive rights were taken away. We are not in a place of progress or celebration when human rights are being taken away.”

A minor mistake of major import: that U.S. Supreme Court Wade vs. Roe ruling changed the original (1973) decision by stating that abortion was not a constitutional right. That’s all, folks.

Previously, abortion had been permitted in specific circumstances. Some charged, with some reason, that the original 1973 ruling changed abortion into a surgical form of contraception, taking the entire idea from the field of legislation to a heated battle between ideologically charged emotions.

The online debate sunk even lower. Someone replied: “Maybe have a funeral and bury the Constitution and the Flag?”

Avila Farias replied: “Please invite me!”

Not really original

Dana P. Saxon – founder of Ancestors unKnown, a self-described group promoting “curriculum and special programming for schools and youth orgs” – published (in 2020, and on that same a rant titled “9 Reasons Why I Don’t Celebrate the 4th of July.”

It’s filled with a number of either straight inaccurate or perfectly misleading statements such as: “After 1776, it took nearly another 100 years before my ancestors technically gained their freedom in 1865. And a whole heap of pain, trauma, and oppression maintained during those years when only white Americans were liberated from someone else’s rule.”

One of those who have conveniently forgotten that the U.S. was one of the first countries to fight against slavery. Also, one of those who have never heard of putting historical facts into the context of their times.

Ms. Saxon moved to the Netherlands in 2011, where she’d gained a Sociology Master’s degree from University of Amsterdam.

Still: Ms. Saxon published her scream as a private person. She only proved that academic degrees these days aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

AnaMarie Avila Farias is yet another proof that democracy is in mortal danger because this noble system has no defences: to silence the “third-generation Latina,” as she describes herself, would be undemocratic.

On the other hand, to permit such politically charged illiterates to run education programs spells suicide for democracy.

Sorry to be alive

Many Canadians like to believe the myth that theirs is the most polite nation on earth. That’s why they love apologising for sins committed by their forefathers, ooops, sorry for that, by their foreparents.

The idea is somehow misguided (stupid would be the proper word, but we’d risk that someone would demand that we apologise for telling the truth).

Why is it a problem?

Because those who demand (and more often than not receive) official apologies are either judging the past by today’s standards, or they are loud enough to drown facts in their cries for redress.

Such as: the official line notwithstanding, the so-called residential schools were supposed to bring Canada’s native inhabitants from Stone Age into the 19th (and 20th) century. Living primitive nomadic lifestyles, applying extensive use of nature, unaware of the steps forward humanity has made while they weren’t looking, these schools taught their students skills that could help them share in the progress.

Physical punishment was part of the curriculum. Based on the spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child dictum that today’s educators have ditched to their students’ detriment, they may have overdone it here and there, but saying that the system was wrong because of the occasional mistake now and then shows perfect illiteracy. That’s the optimistic view. The realistic view holds that those crying crocodile tears the bitterest have figured the white newcomers’ weakness and are now trying to continue milking the cow until she runs dry.

It’s the same thing with the hoax named mass graves.

Canada now has a federal agency called National Apology Advisory Committee. Some stuff that’s forthcoming: an apology for the racism faced by the No. 2 Construction Battalion, an all-black First World War military unit.

Next in line: saying so frightfully sorry for what those who stand to benefit call injustices experienced by LGBTQ2 individuals, their families, partners, and communities as a result of federal legislation, policies, and programs.

Our buffoon-in-chief even has a Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues. Randy Boissonnault, MP, is the official Eitzesgeber on this occasion, and his committee consists of members of the LGBTQ2 only: heterosexuals need not apply.

More about some history

Let’s go back all the way to 1914: a shipload of migrants from India was turned away from Vancouver in the so-called Komagata Maru incident. The idea that every country should have the right to decide whom to accept as a new future citizen seems to appal those who are still calling for heads to roll for a controversy more than a century old.

Or how about the people of Japanese origin detained during World War II? Their country part of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan axis, and Canada part of the war effort against that military and political association, authorities at the time viewed them with suspicion, not fully convinced in the knowledge where their allegiances lay.

Yes, it may have broken their basic human rights. But let’s be more specific here: war as such and by definition suspends basic human rights. Besides, it was Japan who declared war on North America (Pearl Harbour, anyone?).

And yes, too, rejecting entry to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s is and will remain a stain on Canada’s history, and no apologies will ever change that (neither they should).

On the other hand, allowing Nazi war criminals into Canada (some of them would become then-Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s personal friends) has been part of the country’s past, too.

Canadians apologised for the Chilcotin war not once but twice.

B.C. prospectors used to ignore what today’s historian describe as the “rights of the Indians and their claims upon us.”

Here’s what happened that fateful April of 1864: a crew had been building a road through Tsilhqot’in land to get to gold-rich Williams Creek. In a sudden dawn attack, 12 of their number were killed as they lay sleeping in their tents.

Not that the situation has improved much since: B.C. Indians claim that most of the province had been built atop untreatied land. Considering that adding up all of the claims would come to more than 115 per cent of B.C. was owned by Indians who, before the “whities” had come, weren’t even aware of the concept of “ownership,” this issue would have been a farce, if everybody weren’t quoting it as if happened yesterday.

Recent headlines

As if trying to make sure we don’t forget him, Justin Trudeau announced from Rwanda’s Kigali that his government have put together a task force to find out why Canadians have to wait for their federal government’s services in lines longer than the circumference of the Earth at the equator.

So, the existence of the National Apology Advisory Committee shouldn’t surprise anybody.

The National Post newspaper has come up with a (incomplete but illustrative) list of Canada’s apologies in recent decades.

  • 1988
    Sept. 22
    : Prime Minister Brian Mulroney formally apologises in the House of Commons for the internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War.
  • 1990
    Nov. 4
    : Mulroney offers an apology to Italian-Canadians declared “enemy aliens” when Italy declared war on Canada in 1940 and detained during the Second World War.
  • 2001
    Dec. 11
    : Ron Duhamel, the minister of Veteran affairs, apologises in the House of Commons for the executions of 23 Canadian soldiers during the First World War and says their names will be added to the country’s book of remembrance.
  • 2006
    June 22
    : Then-prime minister Stephen Harper apologises in the House of Commons for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants between 1885 and 1923.
  • 2008
    May 9
    : The federal government announces a $10-million education grant to recognise the internment of Ukrainian-Canadians during the First World War, but stops short of an official apology.
  • June 11: Harper apologises in the House of Commons for Canada’s residential-schools system, which more than 150,000 First Nations, Metis and Inuit children attended from the 1840s to 1996.
  • Aug. 3: At an event in B.C., Harper apologises for the Komagata Maru incident, in which a shipload of migrants from India was turned away from Vancouver in 1914, but organisers immediately demand an official apology in the House of Commons.
  • 2016
    May 18
    : Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologises in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident.
  • 2017
    Nov. 24
    : Trudeau apologises in Goose Bay, N.L., for abuse and cultural losses at residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador: the gesture “is part of recognising ‘hard truths’ Canada must confront as a society.”
  • Nov. 28: Trudeau apologises in the House of Commons for past state-sanctioned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited people in Canada that he said cost people their “livelihoods and in some cases, their lives.”
  • 2018
    Nov. 2
    : Trudeau apologises and exonerates six Tsilhqot’in chiefs invited by colonial officials for peace talks more than 150 years ago only to be arrested, tried and hanged, saying the incident was a “betrayal of trust” and “an injustice.”
  • Nov. 7: Trudeau apologises in the House of Commons for Canada’s decision in 1939 to reject an asylum request from more than 900 German Jews, 254 of whom died in the Holocaust — a fate Trudeau says could have been avoided.
  • 2019
    March 8
    : Trudeau apologises in Iqaluit for the way Inuit in northern Canada were treated for tuberculosis in the mid-20th century, calling the policies colonial and misguided.
  • May 23: Trudeau exonerates Chief Poundmaker in the community that bears his name — the Poundmaker Cree Nation — and apologises for the chief’s unjust conviction for treason more than 130 years ago.

And, by the way, if you have ever felt slighted by Canada’s federal government, you can reach the National Apology Advisory Committee by e-mail:

Operators are standing by, as the old commercials used to say.

%d bloggers like this: