Canada Needs to Grow Up

From the BBC:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken a stand on social media against the temporary US ban on refugees and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.

One day I hope Canada and Canadians will be able to define themselves on who they are, rather than who they are not. Judging by this statement and others posted by Canadians on social media, this seems beyond them.

Mr Trudeau underscored his government’s commitment to bringing in “those fleeing persecution, terror & war”.

This is the man who praised Fidel Castro and said absolutely nothing when Obama terminated the ‘wet foot, dry foot’ policy which offered sanctuary to Cubans fleeing Communist repression.

Within hours, Mr Trudeau’s tweets had been shared more than 150,000 times.

“Welcome to Canada” also became a trending term in the country.

Mr Trudeau, who gained global attention for granting entry to nearly 40,000 Syrian refugees to Canada over the past 13 months, also sent a pointed tweet that showed him greeting a young refugee at a Canadian airport in 2015.

So far Canadians seem happy with this man-child and his immigration policies. At least, that’s what social media and the mainstream press would have us believe. But then again, I wonder if millions of ordinary Canadians are quietly seething about this and we’ll be seeing Trudeau out on his arse at the next election. He appears to have been elected largely on his looks the first time around.

For all their self-righteous posturing about tolerance, diversity, and their not being like those ghastly Americans they’ve just had a 27 year old French-Canadian social studies student shoot up a mosque in Quebec. Somebody up there needs to start governing properly rather than striking poses at the United States, and that will involve a mature discussion on immigration, its benefits, and drawbacks. Under their current PM I doubt this is even possible.

They suffer for our benefit

Staying with the BBC and its obsession with Trump, we get this article:

Sexual harassment and even violence against female parliamentarians is widespread, a report from a global parliamentary grouping suggests.

Three sentences later we get this, under the subheading “Rape Threats”:

The report from the IPU comes at a time when US Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and his alleged sexual harassment of other women over the years, have been making headlines.

Cute, eh?  Let’s mention Donald Trump – who has not had any complaints of sexual misconduct levelled against him by any female politician – after “rape threats”.  How very clever!  Naturally, the BBC fails to mention Hillary’s husband and that trifling incident involving a White House intern.

It reveals some of the abuse female politicians around the world face while fulfilling their roles in elected positions.

A European member of parliament reported receiving more than 500 threats of rape on Twitter in the space of just four days.

Appalling.  But just for balance, how many rape threats did she get that weren’t via the medium of Twitter?

“In my part of the world… there is all sorts of language that is associated with female parliamentarians,” says Prof Nkandu Luo, currently minister of gender in Zambia.

She recalls a male member of parliament publicly recounting that he liked to go to parliament because “all the women are there and I can just point and choose which one I want”.

The remarks, Professor Luo said, were reported in the press as something amusing and acceptable. “It’s the way they demean women.”

Careful! All this talk of sexism and misogyny among parliamentarians in Africa might distract from the implication that Trump is a rapist!

This is particularly good:

Meanwhile Senator Salma Ataullahjan of Canada said she at first thought the survey would not be relevant to her. “I said, I’m from Canada, I don’t need to take part in this.”

But answering the survey questions was, she said, enlightening. “You know as parliamentarians, we go out, we meet people, and I remember this one gentlemen getting up very close to me.”

The ‘gentlemen’ went on to make suggestive comments to Sen Ataullahjan, which at the time she brushed off.

But recounting the incident for the survey brought it home that she had experienced inappropriate, even threatening, behaviour.

It took a survey to drop through her letterbox before she realised she’d been subject to threatening behaviour?  Wasn’t quite a knife at the throat then, was it?  This is up there with “Have you had an accident at work? Are you sure? Think back. Think hard.”

Now, she says, she has become much more open with her male colleagues.

“We have to change the mindset about what is acceptable language, and what is acceptable behaviour and what is not,” she says.

Here’s a tip: try dealing with inappropriate behaviour when it occurs, rather than bleating to the media after a survey jogs your memory.

Just 55 female MPs took part in the survey, but they represent parliaments from across the globe.

55 women took part? Is that all? Did they ask Sarah Palin?

Of the women who took part in the survey, 65.5% said they had been the target of insults using sexual language and imagery.

That would be 36 women, then.  Globally.  The conclusion:

The report concludes that the sheer pervasiveness of sexual discrimination, from humiliating language to harassment to real violence is preventing many elected women from carrying out their duties in freedom and safety.


“So if the elite are victims of sexual aggression, what about the underprivileged?”

Such as White House interns?

Oh look, a squirrel!

Yesterday I read two stories which, when read one after the other, show an interesting contrast.

The first is from the BBC, which continues its core policy of using money forcibly lifted from the pockets of British citizens to campaign for Hillary Clinton by relentlessly posting negative articles about Donald Trump:

In Vancouver, the developer of a new Trump Tower has been under pressure for months to drop the Republican presidential candidate’s name from the project. Meanwhile, the Trump Tower in Toronto is the subject of a lawsuit after facing years of controversy.

Squabbles over real estate in provincial Canada deserve front-page billing on the BBC’s website, apparently.

Donald Trump’s controversial run for US president is having an impact on his businesses in Canada and knock-on effects for those who have partnered with his brand.

The opening date for the Vancouver hotel has been delayed until 2017, well after November’s US election. A contest offering a chance to meet with the Trump family for the grand opening caused a stir.

Caused a stir!  Oh my!  Pass me my smelling salts, Maude!

Across the country, the Toronto building, which opened in 2012, has been the target of a lawsuit by small investors who claim they were misled into buying into the project. Its developer, Talon Development Inc, has tried to remove the Trump name from the troubled hotel and condominium complex.

The story is similar in other countries.

Is it?  Let’s see.

In Dubai, a firm building a golf complex with Mr Trump removed his name and image from the property. In Turkey, the developers of Trump Towers Istanbul have tried to distance themselves from the Republican hopeful. And there have been protests outside Trump buildings in the US.

Only at the BBC is a lawsuit involving possible fraud “similar” to protests about somebody’s opinions.

An Angus Reid Institute poll released in December indicated that 56% of Canadians supported having the Trump brand dumped from the two Canadian towers.

Presumably 44% of Canadians responded with “What the fuck has this got to do with me?”

Brent Toderian, a Vancouver-based city planner, was the first to openly oppose Trump branding on the 63-storey Canadian tower, designed by famed architect Arthur Erickson to have a distinctive 45-degree twist as it rose into the sky.

“We’ve taken a building that is the second-tallest in the skyline, carefully planned at least in part by one of our most revered Canadian architects – a very elegant piece of architecture for our skyline – and retroactively duct-taped Trump’s name to it,” he said in an interview.

So we have a Vancouver-based city planner who appears to be unaware of how the naming rights of buildings work.  Isn’t Canada the place all those super-clever Americans are going to flee to in the event of a Trump Presidency?

The luxury hotel and condominium tower in downtown Vancouver is owned by the Holborn Group, a private real-estate developer which partnered with the Trump brand in 2013.

Why should the wishes of mere owners of a development override the concerns of a random city planner?  Democracy has failed, people!

The project is licensed to use the Trump name and brand – including for Canada’s first Mar-a-Lago Spa by Ivanka Trump – and will be managed by the real estate magnate’s company, which is also overseeing the building’s interior design.

Why, it’s almost as if the Trump brand adds value.

In December, Mr Toderian renewed his call for the Holborn Group to distance themselves from the Trump name. He was joined by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, who said the brand had no place on the city’s skyline.

The owners of that skyline beg to differ:

The Holborn Group did not respond to requests for comment but in previous statements has noted that the still-unfinished building will create some 300 new jobs.

300 jobs is a small price to pay for looking virtuous.

“Donald Trump’s hateful positions and commentary remind us all of much darker times in our world’s past – and it is incumbent upon all of us to forcefully challenge hatred in all of the ways that it confronts us,” he wrote in a letter to the developer.

Translation from whining Canadian into other forms of English: “I don’t like Trump and everyone should be forced to agree with me.”

Fortunately there is somebody up there with some sense:

“Holborn, a company that has contributed immensely to the growth of Vancouver, is not in any way involved in US politics. As such, we would not comment further on Mr Trump’s personal or political agenda, nor any political issues, local or foreign,” CEO Joo Kim Tiah said in December.

And yet more sensible folk are voting with their feet:

Despite the fuss, nearly 10,000 people have applied to work at the Vancouver Trump Tower, according to the hotel’s general manager, and Holborn says it has sold all the luxury condos in the building.

Presumably Vancouver-based city planners don’t rub shoulders with the types that work in hotels very often.  Apart from when snapping fingers at them.

In Toronto, project developer Talon was close to a deal to sell the troubled 65-storey hotel and condominium complex at the heart of the city’s financial district earlier this year. However, Toronto’s Trump Tower is currently off the market.

Talon chairman Alex Shnaider was also trying to have the Trump name removed from the building, at one point seeking to do so through arbitration. Those efforts also appear to have stalled. A lawyer for Talon refused to comment other than to note there is currently no lawsuit between the owners of the hotel and Mr Trump.

Emphasis mine.  The BBC doesn’t give up easily, though:

The building is the subject of a lawsuit by disgruntled buyers who lost money after investing in the property, in one instance almost 1m Canadian dollars ($750,000; £613,000).

I’m listening.

The Trump Organization does not have an ownership stake in the building but it operates and manages the hotel and licenses the Trump name to the complex for a fee.

Oh.  So the upshot of this entire article is that a building which Trump has no ownership stake in is the subject of a lawsuit in provincial Canada, and a Vancouver-based city planner doesn’t like a development that 10,000 people want to work at.

Why is this on the front page of the BBC again?  That was a rhetorical question.

The second piece is a comment over at Samizdata by “bobby b”:

A few weeks ago, I listened to a radio interview of a Democrat operative talking about the Dem National Committee e-mails that had been leaked, which showed that the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders, that the DNC and the press were working hand in hand, and that an awful lot of campaign money and influence was coming in from foreign sources.

His, and his interviewer’s, and their call-in commenters’, take on the situation was that they should be more careful with their e-mail and comm security.

Not a word of concern for the lies and deception that the e-mails made evident. Not a word about how our government is supposed to work versus the bastardization of a system they had created. Not a word about the felonies committed in allowing foreign money to affect our election.

No, their take was, we have to lie more securely.

Rampant corruption at the very highest political offices across the land is actively ignored by our contemporary media.  Instead they distract us with non-stories about people we aren’t supposed to like.

In a few weeks we’ll find out whether the mainstream media is still relevant.  Whatever the result of the election, I think they are damaged beyond repair and their remaining time is very limited.