Climate change and hurricane intensity

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Sept 22

Never one to let a tragedy go unexploited, Justin Trudeau appeared in Atlantic Canada to talk to the people affected by post-tropical storm Fiona about climate change.  Fiona is not related to climate change, either in origin or intensity, but never mind.

Between 1950 and 2020, Canada was impacted by no fewer than 140 tropical systems, with two being Category 3+, 34 being Cat 1+, 79 tropical depressions, and 140 extra-tropical systems.  The strongest storm to make landfall in Canada was Hurricane Ginny in 1969, and of course there is Hurricane Hazel of 1954.  The deadliest hurricane to hit Canada was in September, 1775, in Newfoundland, that killed over 4,000 people.  This was when atmospheric CO2 levels were at pre-industrial lows.

It is a myth that hurricanes are increasing in “intensity,” and climate change is responsible.  Hogwash!  Hurricanes are powered in part by differences in temperature, not absolute temperature.  The difference between 30℃ and 15℃ is the same as between 30.5℃ and 15.5℃.  The NOAA believes that hurricanes may increase in intensity by 5 percent but decrease in number by 25 percent by the end of this century.

Climate charlatans are utterly shameless in pushing their strange agenda.  Canada particularly ought to be exempt from this nonsense, because, even if you believe that CO2 is the driver of climate change, Canada is responsible only for 1.5 percent of it.  We can’t solve the problem because we aren’t part of the problem, and we’re no moral example to India and China.  Xi Jinping doesn’t listen to us.

If you want to play the morality game, India and China are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by creating fossil-fuel fired electrical generation.  They aren’t going to stop, so why is Justin Trudeau out there shamelessly talking about crippling Canadian industrial and agricultural output for the sake of something that, by his lights, is going to happen?  You get the feeling that Trudeau’s climate change agenda has nothing to do with affecting the climate.

-30-

Mohawks, circa 1702

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Sept 22

In preparation for another “Truth and Reconciliation” Day, I’m going to offer some Truth, and leave the Reconciliation to others.  The truth concerns three treaties or agreements that were made in quick success in 1701.  The first is the Great Treaty of Montreal, signed on 4 August, 1701, the second is the Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty, which may have been concluded in 1702, and the third is the so-called Nanfan treaty, signed 19 July 1701.

To understand the run up to these treaties, one must know of the intensity of the Beaver Wars of the 17^th century.  Indian bands were trapping beaver and selling the pelts to either the English or the French.  It was big business, big enough for organized battles and raids to control hunting territories.

The Iroquois traded with the English, but by the latter 17^th century had hunted beaver in their tradition grounds to extinction.  They needed to go farther afield to find more, which brought them into conflict with tribes allied with the French.  In the last two decades of the 17^th century, the Iroquois started to get the worst of it, especially when the French lent their military power to aid their Indian allies.  A peace agreement was deemed preferable to all, and hence the Great Peace of Montreal was arranged.

The Great Peace of Montreal was a peace treaty between New France and 39 Indian bands that ended the Beaver Wars of the 17^th century.  The principle was one of sharing the hunting grounds.  It was signed in Montreal on August 4, 1701.  The French agreed to act as arbiter during conflicts with signatory tribes, which included the Iroquois and Mississaugas.

The Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty appears to be a side deal between the Iroquois and the Mississaugas of the Credit (the Mississaugas say it was made with the Mohawks only), and this treaty was in the spirit of the Montreal Treaty, the sharing of hunting grounds.  The Mississaugas agreed to share their hunting grounds with the Iroquois, in particular the “land between the lakes.”

In the so-called Nanfan Treaty, the Iroquois attempted to gain the protection of the English against the French and their allied Indian bands in their use of territory claimed by the Mississaugas - and incorporated in the Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty.  It was signed before Dish with One Spoon was concluded, and is contrary to the spirit of Dish with One Spoon.

In no sense is the Nanfan Treaty a “treaty.”  It does not engage the English Crown.  To engage the Crown what was required was a Letters Patent from King William III of England to John Nanfan, appointing him as the King’s plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with certain Indian bands concerning certain matters.  That Letters Patent doesn’t exist.

What the “treaty” actually is, is a surrender of title of lands the Iroquois didn’t actually possess.  Specifically, the Iroquois Nations deed to the English Crown their title to Beaver Hunting grounds that they acquired by right of conquest in the 17^th century, which saw the annihilation of the Huron Nation in 1649.  This territory included the Niagara Peninsula, all of South-Western Ontario (the “Land between the Lakes”), the Bruce Peninsula, and the north shore of Lake Ontario as far east as Oshawa.  This and more was part of New France at the time, and claimed, as well as occupied, by Algonquinian allies, which included the Mississaugas of the Credit.  Much of this territory was subject to the Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty.

The Iroquois “voluntarily surrendered, delivered up, and by these presents do for us, our heirs and successors forever, quit claimed onto the King of England forever all the right, title, and interest and all claims and demands whatsoever.”  That’s pretty definitive, and raises the question why would the Iroquois surrender title in exchange, apparently, for nothing (albeit land that wasn’t theirs)?  It was ostensibly offered as a gift to the King William III of England, his heir and successors, out of an admiration for him.

Looking deeper, the answer seems to be that is was a way for the Iroquois to engage British help to protect hunting and fishing territory, which, up until then the Iroquois had to defend on their own. A shrewd idea brought forth by the Chiefs themselves.

The Sir William Johnson Papers include the following passage: “At a public meeting with Lt Govr Nanfan at Albany, they put all their Patrimonial Lands and those obtained by conquest under the Protection of the King of Great Britain, to be by him secured for the use of them and their heirs against the encroachments and ambitious designs of the French.”  They sought exclusive access to the hunting grounds.  However, the British did nothing to protect them. 

To those familiar with the concept of “Indian giving,” surrendering title of land that isn’t yours and might belong to somebody else is standard technique.  The Iroquois were surrounding title of land belonging to the Mississaugas and the future subject of the Dish with One Spoon treaty, including the “land between the lakes.” Through the Nanfan agreement, the Iroquois were hoping that the British would use their military strength to protect the Iroquois, their allies, from attacks by the French and their Indian allies.  The payoff for the British, from the perspective of the Iroquois, for giving the Iroquois exclusive access to the land between the lakes was two-fold: first, the profitable beaver trade would pass through English hands, and the New York colony supposedly had title to lands as far west as present day Chicago, and as far north as Georgian Bay.  The business of enforcing title was left to another time.  But you can understand why William III would never have issued a Letters Patent with this issue in mind because pretending to dispose of territory claimed by King Louis XIV would amount to a casus belli with the Sun King, and Europe was then quacking under the problems of the Spanish succession. 

Because the British did not protect the Iroquois in the manner the Iroquois wanted, the Mississaugas were never confronted with a joint Iroquois-British military force to acquaint them with the new arrangements that were contrary to Dish with One Spoon and the Great Treaty of Montreal.

The territory of New France was settled by the Peace of Paris of 1763, and the frontier of New York State with British North America was settled at the conclusion of the American Revolution by the Treaty of Paris of 1783.  The Nanfan agreement was rendered nearly meaningless.

At the end of it, the Iroquois only hurt themselves in their duplicity with, among others, the Mississaugas.  The Nanfan Treaty is sometimes invoked today by elements of Six Nations to harass the municipalities of Caledonia and Hamilton, Ontario.  The problem with Nanfan is that the Crown was never engaged in the agreement, and the agreement was a gift of land to the Crown, freely given, in perpetuity, title, sovereignty, and quit claim.  There is nothing in Nanfan the Iroquois can rely on as their “treaty rights.”

-30-

“Wee say upon these and many other good motives us hereunto moving have freely and voluntary surrendered delivered up and for ever quit claimed, and by these presents doe for us our heirs and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claim unto our great Lord and Master the King of England called by us Corachkoo and by the Christians William the third and to his heirs and successors Kings and Queens of England for ever all the right title and interest and all the claime and demand whatsoever which wee the said five nations of Indians called the Maquase, Oneydes, Onnondages, Cayouges and Sinnekes now have or which wee ever had or that our heirs or successors at any time hereafter may or ought to have of in or to all that vast Tract of land or Colony called Canagariarchio beginning on the northwest side of Cadarachqui lake …  etc.”

Trudeau the systemic racist?

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Sept 22

RE: Black civil servants file racism complaint with UN.  A CP story by David Fraser.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 29 Sept 22.

When Justin Trudeau said that Canada was systemically racist, he knew whereof he spoke.  When he said that Canada was tainted with Black slavery, he knew whereof he spoke.  When Justin Trudeau took the knee on Parliament Hill in obeisance to BLM demands, who knew he was just checking out the pavement?

After seven years of Trudeau government, you’d think that systemic racism at least within the civil service would be gone by now.  You’d think Black slavery in Canada would be ended, at least in the civil service by now, but maybe not!

The fact that Black civil servants in Canada are taking Canada to the UN seems to be proof that the number one systemic racist, and the number one owner of Black slaves in Canada is none other than Justin Trudeau himself!  That’s how he knew!

Amnesty International claims that Canada is violating its international human rights commitment, including the right to non-discrimination, by not addressing systemic racism.  Canada must take special and concrete measures to eliminate discrimination in employment.

Amnesty International clearly doesn’t know their man.  Justin Trudeau is not subject to the ramifications of his ideology – the little people are.  Expecting Trudeau to actually take “concrete measures” on much of anything is a triumph of hope over experience.

But now we know how to eliminate the scourges of systemic racism and Black slavery in Canada – get rid of Justin Trudeau!

-30-

A Scam Op-ed?

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Sept 22

RE: We’re running out of time on GHG emissions Op-ed by Kim Perrotta and Ronald MacFarlane.  Perrotta is an environmental health specialist and editor and co-author of the 240 page Climate Change Tool Kit for Health Professionals.  MacFarlane is an environmental health expert and advisor.  The Hamilton Spectator 29 Sept 22..

It’s hard to tell if this op-ed on GHG is on the level, or not.  It says, “A recent review of the literature found that 25 out of 29 studies linked adverse health outcome, such as adverse birth outcomes, to the fracking of oil and gas.” Another incredible boner is “15,500 premature deaths per year in Canada” are caused by “air pollution.” Smells like a scam paper.

You can drive a truck through the holes in these absurdities.  They’re so unscientific the serious person can’t take them seriously.  Twenty years ago the OMA declared that 1,500 “premature” deaths per year were caused in Ontario by the operation of coal-fired power plants.  When I called attention the sleaziness of the term “premature” and demanded the OMA to produce the death certificates, the OMA responded with tap-dancing: a death certificate wouldn’t show air pollution as the cause of premature death, they explained.  Now, it’s 15,500 across all Canada, despite lower pollution levels!  (In other words, “premature is in the eye of the beholder, and the numbers are the product of some model whose results can’t be checked against real data.)

The linking of adverse birth outcome to fracking is outlandish on its face.  So, fracking in Pennsylvania causes health problems in Hamilton?  25 out of 29 studies agree!  (Is a live birth an “adverse birth outcome”?)

Climate crazies have been saying that we have no time to discuss it since the 1990s, and our two alleged experts say it again.  “We have only eight years!”  They ignore India and China, again, and imply that Canada can do it alone.

It’s a scam, intentional or not.

-30-

Enforced diversity

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Sept 22

RE: Improvising diversity not a ‘slippery slope’ Spectator editorial 28 Sept 22.

Old white men writing editorials for the Spectator think that diversity is great – for other people.  Specifically, city council.

Luckily, we still live in a democracy and the electorate get to make their own decisions about who represents them.  Enforced diversity and equity be damned, I’m picking whomever I want!

“Economist and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell has written two books in the last decade that address the proposition that an organization ought to reflect proportionately the demographics of the community.  They are Discrimination and Disparities, and The Visions of the Anointed.  Sowell goes into pains-taking detail showing why demographic proportionality never happens in the real world.  Groups are not essentially alike in capabilities and desires.  Reality is lumpy, uneven, and particular. The idea that proportional representation ought to occur is a long discredited ‘vision of the anointed.’  But liberals take no cognizance of the findings of Thomas Sowell.  To do so would be counter-productive.”

If you want to follow the science, forget about diversity and equity and leave the electorate to make the choices it wants, unhindered by accusations of choosing wrong.

-30-

 

Grazie Italia

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Sept 22

You don’t ordinarily think of the Associated Press and Reuters as gutter press, but on occasion they can be.  The labelling of Giorgia Meloni as “far-right” and “fascist” are examples of the practice.

Until last week, nobody outside of Italy had ever heard of Giorgia Meloni, or the Brothers of Italy party, but suddenly the instant experts are condemning Italy’s democratic choice to lead the next government.  "Far-right" and "Fascist, "She will be the first elected Prime Minister of Italy in fourteen years; the rest were selected by coalitions of parties.

Why was Meloni elected?  Because her policies are contrary to the consensus of the Italy’s extended bureaucratic class.  In America, it’s called the Deep State; in the UK it’s called The Blob; in Canada it used to be the Mandarins.  It doesn’t matter which party is elected, the same policies remain in place regardless.  Meloni promised an “Italy First” policy, meaning and end to welcoming refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and a painstaking review of environmental policies that are going to freeze Europe this winter.  And she sounds like she means it.

Meloni is another worrisome example of populism – the belief in representative government - that the government should act on the wishes of the people.  It started with Trump’s “America First”, followed here by Pierre Poilievre’s ‘freeing Canada from the grip of Ottawa,’ and Liz Truss in the UK turning conservative and putting “Britain First.”  Elected representatives actually looking after their constituents first – what concept!

Progressivism has taken control of the entrenched bureaucracies around the world.  Rule by expert is congenial to an entrenched bureaucracy, because who is more expert than them?  The entrenched media is in alliance with the entrenched bureaucracy, both professionally and psychologically, for who is better at telling people what is best than the entrenched expert media?

The election of Meloni is a threat to this, and so she gets the treatment: she’s far-right and a fascist.  Never mind the leader of the Italian Left scoffs at these claims.  Her party is connected in some way to post-WWII Italian neo-fascist parties.  As if the Democrat party in the U.S. wasn’t the party of Jim Crow and slavery, or the Liberal and PC parties weren't responsible for maintaining the residential school system.

Meloni doesn’t look remotely like Benito Mussolini, but to put in a good word for him, he only afflicted Italy.  His dream of an Empire collapsed when he threw in with Hitler.  But he never sent Jews to Germany.  If Meloni’s damage is as extensive as Mussolini’s, it will only hurt Italians, the people who elected her.  The rest of the world has nothing to fear from the election of Giorgia Meloni, only the ideologues who fear her like a balloon fears a needle.

-30-

Meloni’s election pushed the election of the “far-right” in Sweden off the pages.  The Swedish right got elected because the policy of admitting refugees from the Middle East was proving disastrous for civil peace in Sweden.  Bombings of all things suddenly erupted – in Sweden!  To say nothing of crimes of violence and violence against women.  Internationalists oppose nationalism, like “Italy First.”  Progressives think European cultures to be evil and must be diluted with Islamic culture imported from the Middle East.  The people, the victims of these policies, had enough, and voted to end the madness and their pain, for the Internationalists and Porgressives are not subject to the ramifications of their ideology – that’s for the betterment of the little people, for society as a whole.  Crazy.

Tearing itself apart

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Apr 22

The Canadian Armed Forces is slowly tearing itself apart. It’s overreacting - overreacting - to allegations of sexual misconduct.  Overreaction doesn’t help the average female member.  Like it or not, the ordinary female member, by this overreaction, is falling under suspicion.  ‘Is this one going to be a career suicide-bomber, destroying her own career for the sake of destroying mine?’  The prudent superior is going to make sure he doesn’t have females close to him.  He’s not going to mentor a female.  It’s dangerous to socialize with females when rules keep changing.  The cost of being wrong is too high..  Since females only comprise about sixteen percent of the CAF, they lack the numbers to be self-supporting.

This is what I mean:

In March, 2022. Provost Marshal BGen Simon Trudeau appointed CWO Jonathan Lacoste Group Chief Warrant Officer of the CF MP Gp.  Lacoste was recently awarded the Sacrifice Medal, he’s got an MMM, a CD with bar, the Afghan Star, and jump wings.  Five days later, Trudeau rescinded the appointment.  Why?

According the CBC News report, then-MWO Lacoste at a 2017 Christmas party held off-base “became visibly drunk and made sexual comments to those around him.”  At his court-martial sentencing in 2019, the judge called Lacoste’s remarks ‘sexualized’ and his comments about the assumed sexual activity and sexual orientation ‘repugnant,’ according the CBC translation from the French.

In the statement of facts, CBC reported “Lacoste agreed that he commented on a junior female sergeant who was wearing a low-cut dress…. Lacoste told a colleague: ‘Look at her with her tits coming out. We know her boyfriend is in Afghanistan. She just wants to get screwed,’ or other remarks to that effect.  Lacoste also made a vulgar comment about the perceived sexual orientation of a woman who was of a higher rank.”

“Later, he was in a car with a female friend and told her….not to be a ‘sainte nitouche,’ a slang term that roughly translates into a prude who is a tease.  The decision also stated he made unkind comments about her husband, who did not attend the event.”

“In a plea deal, Lacoste was convicted of drunkenness and fined $2,800, an offence and sentence that would not show on his criminal record or prevent promotions.” 

Trudeau explained that problems with the vetting process failed to bring to light Lacoste’s “sexualized” and “repugnant” remarks.  Yet within days of Lacoste’s appointment the media got hold of internal CAF documents the Provost Marshal wasn’t aware of.  Somebody with deep insider knowledge leaked protected documents.

Lacoste’s in vino veritas moment doesn’t appear to technically violate the DAOD on Sexual Misconduct.  No matter, people he trusted turned on him, including his “friend”, and Lacoste paid a price – twice, once after rehabilitation.  Trudeau may have ignored the old conviction, but the leaked details made the politics dangerous and he reacted predictably.

Mutiny on the Bounty: Also in March, LCdr Nicole Dugas and LCdr Jennifer McGean jointly announced to CBC News that they were quitting the RCN over “the way the CAF handles sexual misconduct.”  The story is that Cdr Ian Bye allegedly sexually harassed Dugas.  Bye was charged and convicted of making a sexual comment in the mess, was given a written warning, fined $1500, and administratively released under 5F in July 2021, according to the CBC News report.

Not good enough for the ladies.  They wanted the scalps of three other superior officers who had discouraged Dugas from pressing charges.  RAdm Brian Santarpia wouldn’t agree, and so they quit “having lost trust” in Santarpia and the “entire institution.”  Apparently, Dugas recorded conversations she had with the superiors, and with Santarpia.

Dugas didn’t get what she wanted, and so she publicly detonated her career in the hopes of harming RAdm Santarpia.  McGean self-detonation was apparently coordinately, in public sympathy with Dugas.

Nobody’s clean here.  But all this dirty laundry is being aired in the media because somebody leaked in the hopes of sparking another overreaction.

-30- 

 

 

 

At long last, good sense

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Sept 22

RE: Let’s get vaccinations back on track.  Op-ed by Dr. M. Mustafa Hirji.  The Hamilton Spectator 23 Sept 22.

It’s been months, if not years, since the Spectator ran a sensible op-ed about vaccines.  Dr. Hirji is calling for a rapid return to the vaccination of schoolkids, which was routine before the pandemic panic.

Recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci, 80, admitted that he knowingly chose to save great-grandma’s life in a manner that sacrificed the education and well-being of school-kids.  Canada’s spineless public health officials, afraid to think for themselves, went along with it, and routine school vaccination programs fell by the wayside.

A person can think that the COVID vaccines were useless, if not more dangerous than nothing, for people under 60, without being an “anti-vaxxer.”  But that reductionist cancellation was employed with a vengeance by the media and vested political interests against people who thought so.

I have no issue with routine school vaccinations, and I had great hopes for the COVID vaccines.  But when the data started coming in, I grew first disappointed and then alarmed.  When the full panoply of political screws were turned to suppress questions, I knew something was wrong.

By calling for a rapid return to routine vaccination programs, as Dr. Hirji does, one hopes that will lift the cloud put over COVID vaccine skeptics (or data readers) by the reductionist insults of ignorant media and shameless political interests.

-30-

Compare this with my "south of 90" post below.

It’s a mental crisis

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Sept 22

RE: Crisis expected to cost province billions.  A CP story by Allison Jones.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 23 Sept 22.

We’re not suffering from a climate crisis; we’re suffering from a mental crisis.  Specifically, that crisis takes two forms: the first is the belief that civilization will come to an end as a result of burning fossil fuels, fertilizing crops, and eating beef; while the second comes as a belief that Hamilton, Ontario, Canada can do anything about it.

It’s the opinion of Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office that “climate change” will raise the cost of maintaining infrastructure from $11B to $13B per year by 2030 and to $15B per year by 2050.  I have a feeling that inflation and population growth will have far greater effects on those numbers than climate change.  Keep in mind that the FAO is making it all up. They don’t know what the actual effects of climate change will be in 2050; it could be drought or repeated torrential rains, or pretty much the same as between 1950 and 1980 (which included Hurricane Hazel).  So long as Ontario doesn’t cripple its economy with unwise climate mitigation measures, she’ll have to money to handle higher maintenance costs.

The Greens, of course, partake in the mental-cum-climate crisis, and demand Ontario “take meaningful climate action” to reduce the FAO estimates.  Ontario shares the planet with China and India, whose CO2 emissions dwarf Ontario’s and will rise rapidly through 2030.  There’s nothing Ontario can do about the world’s CO2 emissions, which vastly dwarf its own.  The Greens must know this, and they don’t care.  They have a mental crisis too.

Brace for impact, and keep making money.

-30-

South of 90

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Sept 22

RE: The will of the majority is not the problem.  Op-ed by Jim Gillatly.  The Hamilton Spectator 22 Sept 22.

It is rare when a writer admits inter alia that his IQ is less than 90, but that’s what Jim Gillatly did.  He writes, “No person with an I.Q. north of 90 would have believed that a vaccination would prevent you for getting the disease.”

The smallpox vaccine doesn’t reduce the severity of your smallpox infection; it confers immunity against smallpox.  Likewise, the Salk vaccine doesn’t reduce the severity of your polio infection; it confers immunity against polio. “Conferring immunity” is what a vaccine is supposed to do.  And this is what was reflected in the medical literature until the middle of 2021.

In response to criticism that the COVID vaccines weren’t conferring immunity, officials responsible for official definitions, and who were up to their necks in vaccination advocacy, went back to their word processers and changed the definition of a vaccine on their websites from something that conferred immunity to something that reduced severity.  The medical bureaucrats caught in the headlights played Orwellian games with words to escape criticism.

These changes were noted by critics at the time, but apparently, a lot of people were fooled.  And remain fooled.

-30-

Why Poilievre wins the next election

 Keeping it real

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Sept 22

RE: Climate change a top tier concern for foreign leaders.  A CP story by James McCarten.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 22 Sept 22.

If you want to know why Pierre Poilievre is going to win the next election, you only have to read this headline.  Earlier this week, the global average temperature anomaly was 0.1℃ above the 1979-2000 average.  This is the global warming that is supposed run out of control by 2030 and destroy the planet by 2099.  Meanwhile, Canada’s inflation rate is running at about 8 percent.

Climate change has the advantage of being invisible and remote.  We can’t see the climate changing and its alleged disastrous effects are in the remote future.  Talking about climate change among world leaders a lot easier than dealing with prosaic things at home, like inflation, deficits, supply disruptions, and prospective food shortages - things that are all too real.

Changes in the price of bread and gasoline are visible and immediate.  People feel the effects of high inflation immediately.  They can be inconvenienced by shortages, and these are the issues that Poilievre keeps talking about.

It may be plodding to talk about the price of bread as compared to saving the planet, but at the next election people will have a choice between saving civilization in 2099 or stopping the rise in the cost of bread and gasoline right now.  A lot of people who are really suffering in the here and now are going to choose dealing with the here and now over the invisible, the remote, and, let’s face it, the ridiculous.

-30-

Democracy versus gender parity

Vincent J. Curtis

21 Sept 22

RE: We’re slipping backwards on gender parity. Op-ed by Shari Graydon, the “catalyst and CEO” of Informed Opinions, a Non-Profit branch of Power Campaign aims to inspire concrete actions on increasing women’s political representation in Canada.  The Hamilton Spectator 21 Sept 22.

Who hasn’t watched waves lapping at the beach?  The water runs up, then it runs back.  Shari Graydon thinks that Mexico is more democratic than Canada because Mexico has hobbled democratic choice in that country to ensure that woman have quota in government decision-making.  Canada lets its electorate decide who represents them with minimal restrictions on candidates to choose from.  So, if you take as a fundamental measure of democracy the proportion of women in elected office, as Graydon does, then Canada falls behind Mexico in terms of democracy - because our choices are freer!

I know this sounds crazy, but democratic election means putting the person with the most votes into office.  But, to the fever-swamps of progressivism, that’s not what democracy means. Sometimes more women, sometimes fewer get elected, depending on the candidates, their policies, and the mood of the electorate.  But that’s not the way democracy is supposed to work!!  And that’s why Canada is falling behind Mexico in terms of democracy – because gender parity is not accounted for in Canada.  We don’t have quotas for women, or anyone else: gays, Muslims, Indigenous, Blacks, Sikh, or what have you – because quotas restrict democratic choices.

It should be clear that a quota system, and that’s what legislated gender parity is, is antithetical to true representative democracy, and there’s no principled place to stop with quotas.

Graydon’s piece is another example of the use of shame to coerce people into accepting her views: you’re a bad person if you don’t.

-30-

Abolishing the Monarchy is a media fetish only

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Sept 22

RE: The monarchy, Canada, and the future.  Spectator editorial 20 Sept 22.

In the wake of Queen Elizabeth’s death and funeral, only the media are talking about replacing the monarchy.  The CBC can’t help bringing it up, and now the Spectator.  But no one else is.  And the reason is that most people recognize that Canada has the best form of government possible, a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch is largely absent.  Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others.

But inveighing on replacing the monarchy gave the Spectator editors a chance to reveal how absolutely ignorant of history they are.  And call into question their capacity to reason at all.  For example, the claim that Queen Elizabeth “represented an empire that in its history ruled over and exploited countries around the globe.  That this exploitation came in the form of violence racism, slavery, raiding natural resources, and robbing local economies.”  Not even the second Boer War meets these criteria, and this is the British Empire we’re talking about, not the Russian Empire.  The Left has its QAnon too, apparently.

Let’s talk about enslavement.  Britain abolished slavery in 1833, used the Royal Navy to suppress the slave trade, and, as Douglas Murray notes, paid a heavy price in reparations to do so.  Get credit for it?  No.

Indigenous relations with the Crown begins in 1763 with the Royal Proclamation, a most liberal document.  British North America, Canada, engaged in genocide of Indigenous?  Not even Murray Sinclair claims that.  Name dates and places of the massacres, please, or shut up liar!

Black people were enslaved in the colonies of British North America?  Another popular lie from the fever swamps of progressivism.  Dates and places, please, or stop your slander of Canada.  Upper Canada abolished slavery in 1793.

Canada’s distancing itself from London began in 1922, not 1965.  Canada signed the Treaty of Versailles as a separate belligerent power, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931, recognized Canada as a completely independent country.  There was the Letters Patent of 1947.  All the big stuff happened before the Spec editors were born, and so they don’t know of it.

After concluding that its goal is impossible of realization, the Spec decides that better to hold the monarchy accountable for the past.  Accountable for what?  Cabinet government had taken hold in Westminster by 1763, and all the decisions were made by elected officials. (The British cabinet thought it outrageous that King George III would issue the Royal Proclamation of 1763 without their advice to do so.)

What’s worse: failing history or failing reason?

-30-

As a technical matter, Blacks were enslaved in Africa, and sold as slaves on slave markets in the new world.  Hence, as a matter of grammar as well as history, Black people couldn’t have been enslaved in BNA.  the Spec was horrible today, even for them.

 

Calling your skeptic a liar

 Vincent J. Curtis

19 Sept 22

RE: Get the facts straight on carbon pricing. Editorial by Keith Brooks.  The Hamilton Spectator 19 Sept 22.

You can’t hold a discussion with someone who begins by calling you a liar.  That’s what Keith Brooks, Program Director of Environmental Defence did.  Given his vested interest in the cause, it’s his “facts” and assertions that are up for review.

For example, he writes,“Forget that clean energy is the cheapest form of new power.” 

Yeah, and that’s why India and China build coal-fired power plants – because it’s the most expensive; and despite China being the world’s leading exporter of solar panels and wind turbine parts.

Back to economics.  No less an economist than Ross McKitrick says that it’s hard to tell the effect of a carbon tax on emissions in the presence of other policies aiming at the same thing.  Yet Brooks has all the confidence of a religious fanatic that carbon taxes will reduce the production of CO2.  “But facts don’t matter when you can score political points.”

What political point is Brooks trying to score?  The salvation of Trudeau’s reputation that is married to carbon pricing, in the face of Pierre Poilievre’s popular commitment to scrap the carbon tax as a useless and pernicious tax churn.

What’s the evidence that a carbon tax will not change consumer habits?  Look at skyrocketing gas prices, which is what a carbon tax is tending to do.  People still had to drive to Toronto to work; they just got poorer.  Fuel consumption is inelastic, and not susceptible to gradual tinkering.  When it breaks, it breaks, catastrophically.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008, starting at $10 per ton.  It’s now $50 per ton, and hasn’t reduced CO2 emissions.

Brooks is just trying to shield Trudeau’s madcap climate policies from an increasingly popular Pierre Poilievre.  And that’s the truth.

Look, one of the biggest fallacies of the carbon tax idea, and there are many, is that climate change can be priced.  No, it can’t.  To start with, you don’t know how much a disastrous weather event was natural and how much was man-caused, and you don’t know because the climate crazies won’t permit funding of research to check that out.

The second part is that there is no market for “climate.”  There being no market, there can be no sensible price on “climate change.”  But, I’ve found that Arts Majors who think they know science better than real scientists do, also know nothing about economics.

What makes a carbon tax polarizing is that it is manifestly stupid.  It comes out of stupid progressive ideology and its failure to understand economics.  People don’t like being taxed for their stupidity, and the carbon tax is a tax based on the assumption that people are stupid.  That’s why it’s polarizing: it’s a battle between those who think other people are stupid, and those other people who aren’t stupid as their progressive better thinks.

Enough with stupidity, and enough with the carbon tax!  Hell, enough with this climate change B.S.!

-30-

The Carl G Mk4 gets smart

Vincent J. Curtis

17 May 22

I reported on the Carl G Mk 4 in the August 2021 issue (EdC Vol 28 No. 7) and said that smart munitions for that variant would soon become available.  The Mk 4 is considerably lighter and handier than the Mk 3.  The Mk 4 weighs only 6.6 kg and is 950 mm long, making it easier to work with generally, but particularly in urban environments.  Being a recoilless rifle, all that flies down range is the warhead/projectile.  But what really distinguished the Mk 4 from earlier variants are the materials of construction: carbon fibre composites and titanium.  The titanium lined bore has an estimated lifetime of 1,000 rounds, about double that of earlier variants.  And unlike previous variants, the bore can be replaced leaving the outer hardware intact.

Now, the first of the smart munitions is.here.

What makes these new smart munitions go is the new sighting system, which is now the primary sighting system for the Mk 4.  It is designated the FCD (for Fire Control Device) 558.  The new sighting system supports the Mk 4 Firebolt system, which serves as the interface between the sighting system and the smart munitions.  The FCD 558 contains a ballistic computer that, among other things, controls the fuse programming for the warhead.  The computer takes data such as propellant temperature, altitude, and air temperature to make automatic adjustments to aimed trajectory.  The operator only has to input range, which is done with a single knob.  The sight also allow for night vision clip-ons.

The Firebolt system is intended to read data from the munition.  It does so via a set of connectors built into the cartridge case, and there is a special connector guide that ensures the cartridge is loaded so that the connectors on the round link up with the receptacles of the Firebolt system.  When electrical contact is made, the Firebolt system automatically detects the kind of munition the warhead is, selects the ballistic program designed for that round, and reads data from the round, such as propellant temperature.  If the round is an anti-personnel airburst round, the Firebolt system provides data to the warhead so that it will explode at the correct altitude downrange.

The firing procedure is reduced to just a few steps: load – select airburst – set range – aim and fire.

Because of the ballistic computer built into the FCD 558, the operator only has to aim at what he wants to hit; no compensation by the operator is needed.

The first of the new smart munitions is the HE 448 anti-personnel airburst round.  It weighs 2.6 kg, has a muzzle velocity of 295 m/s, and has an effective range of over 1,500 m.  The warhead contains 4000 tungsten pellets, and is armed 70 m downrange.  At optimal altitude, the warhead showers an area of 400 m² , a circle of diameter 23 m.  The temperature readings improve airburst timing, especially at the longer ranges.

The first demonstration of the new HE 448 munition took place on May 3-4, 2022, before representatives from 30 countries.  The U.S. Army was evidently impressed, for on 12 May, it placed an order for the Carl G Mk 4.  The U.S. Marines are already equipped with that model.

The price of a unit is in the range of US$20,000, and ammunition cost in the range of US$500 to US$ 3,000.  The price of the new, smart ammo is not yet released.

Last August, I remarked that Canada would be smart to ship all its existing stock of Carl G’s to Ukraine and to buy new.  A program of a measly $10 million (I can hear the procurement folks gagging from here!) the CAF could be equipped with 250 Mk 4’s and still have plenty left over for practice ammunition.  Given the conflict in Ukraine, it might be prudent to arrange licensing for the smart (and expensive!) munitions to be manufactured in Canada, which could also supply U.S. needs.

-30-

This article also appears in the Sept 2022 issue of Esprit de Corps magazine.

14 hours

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Sept 22

They cut off the line up after the wait time reached 14 hours.  14 hours to pass a few seconds seeing the Queen’s coffin lying in state in Westminster Hall.

This is England coming to pay tribute.  And I say England advisedly.  Few people on earth are as confident, self-effacing, and resolute as the English.  That’s why England could pass Brexit and then work patiently to find a government to enact their will.  The English lament Brexit not at all; in fact they want the Northern Ireland bit fixed.

Things are not going well in England.  Britain has an immigrant crisis that the European Court of Human Rights is forbidding from being resolved humanely.  Spending is out of control, and there’s going to be an energy crisis this winter.

I cannot help but think that there’s going to be a reckoning soon.  The English people are coming together, standing together, and talking together for as long as 14 hours.  I’m sure the disparity between what they want and what the government’s delivering is being discussed.  And in their English way, they are fearless about letting their thoughts be known to whomever needs to hear them.

The new Truss government is going to have to act boldly and act fast before the English people gather in large numbers again, for a different reason.

-30-

Centralization of power is the real danger

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Sept 22

RE: Tyranny of the majority is the real danger. Op-ed by Jennifer Asimoudis.  The Hamilton Spectator 15 Sept 22.

While I thoroughly enjoyed Jennifer Asimoudis’s article, I take issue with her on two points, one small, one large.  The small point is that she takes Henry Giroux altogether too seriously.  He’s from the planet Neptune.  The big point concerns her question, “Is not the real threat to democracy found in the tyranny of the majority?”

The expression “tyranny of the majority” is a rhetorical device of the minority.  Democracy per se is not threatened by temporary majorities on this or that issue.  To be sure, pure democracy can be dangerous.  By majority vote, the ancient Athenians ordered Socrates to be killed.  Luckily, neither Canada nor America are pure democracies.  The U.S. is a constitutional republic and Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

The word ‘constitution” means that there are some things a majority cannot touch, such as civil rights guaranteed by the Charter or the U.S. Bill of Rights.  You cannot by democratic vote deprive someone of the right of free speech, and neither can a legislature.    The structure of government, which is what a constitution is for, cannot be easily changed.  It can be by democratic processes, but there are arduous, and intended to be.

The real danger to democracy and to our rights is the excessive accumulation of power in one person or one party.  With too much power, the Charter, the Bill of Rights, constitutions themselves can become mere parchment guarantees.  The seizure of extraordinary powers by the government under the guise of a “pandemic emergency!” I think demonstrates the point.

In Canada, at the beginning of the pandemic, we saw an attempt by Justin Trudeau to suspend parliament for a year with him granted unlimited spending power.  Luckily, his was a minority government and cooler heads prevailed, but the Canadian constitution might have been suspended for who knows how long or even destroyed had Trudeau succeeded in his plan.  All by crying “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war.  Luckily Trudeau lacked sufficient concentration of power, and others were smart enough to say no.

In Arizona, a judge has removed a state office holder from office because the office holder participated in the January 6 demonstration in Washington, D.C.  An elected official is a democratic choice of the people, and a judge decided he had the power to override democratic election and the state constitution.  Judicial power is a threat to democracy in this case.  I don’t know where the judge thinks he gets the power; he just assumed it.  The excuse for removal was the 14^th Amendment disqualifying “insurrectionists” from holding office, except that that term referred to confederates, not MAGA Republicans.  The judge ought to be reversed on appeal, if there is one; and he’s inviting a constitutional crisis because what happens if enough people say “nuts to you!” as I would be inclined to do.  It would be less dangerous to democracy for the state governor to suspend the judge for incompetence, again just assuming he has the power that he pulled out of his nether regions, as the judge did.

And we mustn’t forget Mao Zedong’s adage that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

The treat to democracy isn’t the excesses of democracy, but an excessive concentration of power in the hands of one person or one party.  We also have to be alert to people just declaring they have the power, when they don’t.

-30-

Dish with one spoon wampum treaty

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Sept 22

It has become the fashion across Canada to make so-called land acknowledgements at the beginning of important meetings and events.  These are supposed to be part of Canada’s reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, even though the recitation statements are usually made in the absence of aboriginal representatives, who can receive the acknowledgement.  These acknowledgements, insofar as they are not mere compelled denunciations of Canada’s legal legitimacy, are empty gestures to those reciting it or listening to it.

How empty?  So empty, that people don’t even understand the terms being said.  In Southern Ontario, for example, land acknowledgements often make reference to a “Dish with one spoon wampum treaty” and that the land the meeting is being held on is, or once was, covered by that treaty.  What exactly is the “Dish with one spoon wampum treaty?”

Mississauga oral tradition holds that The Niagara Peninsula, South-Western Ontario, and the north shore of Lake Ontario as far east as the Quebec border was Mississauga territory from time immemorial[1] and that they agreed to share it with the Iroquois in 1701, quite possibly as a side-deal of the Great Peace of Montreal of that year.  A reference to a deal was made in 1765.  Daniel Claus, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, wrote to Sir William Johnson, British Superintendent of Indian Affairs, informing him of the Treaty of Montreal of 1701 in which the Governor of New France told the indigenous parties to the agreement that hunting grounds would be in common and free to all the Indian Nations.

A reference to the side-deal was made in 1793 by Chief Joseph Brant who wrote to Alexander McKee, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, to say that statements to the effect that the Grand River Tract belonged to Six Nations were wrong, inasmuch as the Great Treaty of Montreal of 1701 said that these lands were to be shared with other indigenous tribes for hunting purposes, and that the side-deal, the Dish with one spoon wampum, supported his position.

What Chief Brant said makes perfect sense if European sovereignty and Indian concepts of land possession co-exist in separate, parallel universes.  And they may once have, in the days of 1701, when Europeans hadn’t settled in the area and it was all Indian Territory so far as competing European sovereignties were concerned.  However, by 1784, the facts on the ground had changed.  The American Revolution had succeeded, Mohawks loyal to the British Crown needed a refuge, and United Empire Loyalists began pouring into Southern Ontario, then called Quebec, or British North America.

British authorities found the Mississaugas to be “in possession” of the lands in question, and so in 1784 Sir Frederick Haldimand, governor of the province of Quebec, acquired land around the Grand River from the Mississaugas, and signed a decree granting the tract to Six Nations.  Such an arrangement would be incoherent if the Dish with one spoon treaty still held, as Brant protested.  Mohawks, by right, could simply move there.  Later, beginning in 1792, more land was acquired from the Mississaugas to allow for European settlement in the Niagara Peninsula, South Western Ontario, at the Head of the Lake, and eastwards along the north shore of Lake Ontario.[2]

These land acquisitions rendered the Dish with one spoon wampum treaty as dead as a doornail.  In the first place, the land was no longer hunting ground, nullifying the principle underlying the cause for sharing.  More to the point, the land was no longer Mississauga to share with other Indian Nations.[3]  They sold it to British authorities.  And finally, the land was filled up with non-Indian Nations peoples who were never party to the Dish with one spoon agreement.  Even if one subscribes to Chief Brant’s conception of parallel and non-intersecting ownership, that conception can only still apply to the Six Nations – Mississaguas of the Credit joint reserve.  Everything else was sold.  The territory of Dish with one spoon has shrunk from much of Southern Ontario to a reserve south of Caledonia and east of Highway 6.

The Peace of Paris of 1763 is more relevant today than Dish with one spoon.  The Peace of Paris transferred sovereignty over New France – territory including Southern Ontario - from the French to the British Crown, and today that sovereignty resides in the lawful successor to the British Crown, the Canadian Crown.  Dish with one spoon never engaged Europeans, neither French nor British; it was a deal between aboriginal tribes, and no written copy of the agreement ever existed.  It’s all oral tradition, and a wampum belt now kept in the Royal Ontario Museum.

Acknowledging Dish with one spoon as once covering Southern Ontario is akin to acknowledging that so did a glacier, once.  So what?  The Gage family once owned extensive tracts of land in Stoney Creek and eastern Hamilton, but do no longer.  We recognize that fact by naming some things after the family, just as we acknowledge past Indian heritage with Mohawk Road and the City of Mississauga.  How does ‘acknowledgement’ bring about “reconciliation” when lack of acknowledgement and unsettled land claims aren’t the cause of estrangement?

For those who follow these things, “reconciliation” is a racket.  It has no end, and will never end so long as some aboriginals believe it is a means of squeezing more of the “white man’s money” from his government.  The danger of land acknowledgements is that they call into question the moral and legal legitimacy of Canada.

-30-

 

---

[1] Time immemorial must begin after 1649.  The Hurons occupied much of this territory, and were wiped out by the Iroquois in 1648 and 1649, with the final massacre occurring at St. Ignace, near present day Midland, Ontario.

[2] Mississauga Concession at Niagara (1781), Between the Lakes (1792), Brant Tract (1797), Toronto Purchase (1805), Head of the Lake Purchase (1806), Ajetance Purchase (1818), Treaty 22 (1820), Treaty 23 (1820), Rouge Tract claim (2015 unsettled).

[3] In June, 2010, the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation accepted $145 million from the federal government to settle land claims in Toronto and Burlington, ON. (The Toronto Purchase and Brant Tract.)

Clairvoyance on climate

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Sept 22

RE: Clairvoyant climate report warned of weather extremes.  AP story by Seth Borenstein.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 13 Sept 22.

“I’m so clairvoyant!” said climate report co-author Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University.  “More heat waves, worsening droughts, increasing floods, stronger tropical storms, dogs and cats living together!”  The reason these forecasts are called clairvoyant is because they’re not scientific.  They’re what you’d expect from a fortune-teller.  It’ll all happen “soon.”  The bible is full of Oppenheimer-like forecasts.

More signs that Dr. Oppenheimer reads tea-leaves as a principle occupation is his use of the relative: more this, more that, stronger something else.  Relative compared to what?  A scientific forecast would give numbers, but instead we get that somewhere, sometime, some location fell under a drought, got a strong storm, etc.  You get more precise forecasts from the Farmer’s Almanac, which has been doing it for 203 years.  Where’s the forecast that there’d be no hurricanes this season?

Twelve thousand years ago, the earth emerged from an ice age, and ocean levels were 400 feet below the present level.  When Stonehenge was built, the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in summer; now it’s permanently ice-capped.  During the little ice age, the Thames froze over; now it doesn’t.  Natural variability is much wider than climate fraudsters admit.  These stories pumping climate change want us to believe that mankind is responsible routine acts of nature.  There’s no science to show that.

-30-

Trying it the Indian way

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Sept 22

RE: No reason to keep developers from disputed site, court hears.  By J.P. Antonacci.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 13 Sept 22.

“Why would any community want to initiate a colonial court process to prove the land is theirs, when we’ve been here forever?”  So huffed Courtney Skye, a policy analyst with the Yellowhead Institute, an Indigenous think tank.

Well, Courtney, actually, the British were here before you’re people were.  The Haldimand Tract is so named because a British governor of the Province of Quebec decreed the land to be for the Six Nations.

As for the “colonial” method of adjudication, the Indian method of adjudication is a tad harsh by today’s standards.  In 1649, the Iroquois massacred the Huron Nation, with the final massacre occurring at St. Ignace, near present day Midland. The “land between the lakes” being depopulated of Hurons, the Mississauga of the Credit were free to take possession of it and imagine they’d held it from “time immemorial.”

So, which do you prefer: a “colonial” court proceeding, or an old fashioned Indian massacre as a means of settling disputes over land possession?

The comments of Ms. Skye is an object lesion in the quality of scholarship at the Yellowhead Institute.

-30-

For the uninitiated, this story concerns the Foxgate Development property in Caledonia, ON.  The home development site was occupied starting in July 2020, by a renegade group of aboriginals, who named the site "1492 Landback Lane."  They have used violence and threats of violence to keep workman from the site.  The developer is seeking a permanent injunction against the occupiers.so that it can complete the property development.

Harassment to be expected

Vincent J. Curtis

10 Sept 22

Re: Harassment of journalists rising in COVID era.  Grant Lafleche.  The Hamilton Spectator 10 Sept 22

The rise of social media has coarsened our culture.  It has lowered the price of being an A-Hole.  The Left is known for harassment, having invented it; and for cancel culture, and for being A-Holes.  What we see complained about here is A-Holery from the right, which, being a violation of copyright, is referred to as “hate.”  Hate’s intolerable, and Joanna Frketch of the Spectator has been a victim of it.

In part, I blame the editor for her harassment.  He wants a story slanted to favor the narrative - that the government and its experts are all completely right, and everyone who disagrees is not just wrong, they’re evil and deserving of cancellation.  How often has Frketch sought out a credentialed opponent to the current line – lockdowns, masks, vaccinations - and asked for their reasons for opposing?  Never.  They do exist, but I don’t recall one interviewed.

Instead, we get principled opposition to vaccine mandates dismissed as “anti-vaxxers.”  Never mind we were promised no vaccine mandates before the election.  We don’t see in print criticisms from experts who think the vaccines quite worthless as vaccines, even after the data demonstrates that that’s so.  (Like the critic at U of G, Dr. Byram Bridie.)  We see no challenges put the alleged experts to explain themselves in the face of contraindicating data.  When did we see reviews of forecasts past compared to actual events?  The obvious nonsense of ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated,’ and the need to protect the vaxxed from the unvaxxed went unchallenged.

After the Stanford study (Jan 2021) and the Johns Hopkins study (May 2021) on lockdowns that showed they were worthless in stopping the spread, why wasn’t Frketch asking about why Ontario was locking down again in the face of the most current science?  Why were third doses necessary if the vaccine “worked?”  Because the editor told her he didn’t want that kind of story?

You think there aren’t alternative sources of information?  Dismissing information uncongenial to the narrative as misinformation on the basis of the authority of whom exactly doesn’t win friends or demonstrate intellectual honesty.  Lack of curiosity and refusal to engage the other side is both weak and contemptuous, and you wonder why people retaliate after they think they’ve been lied to?

I blame the editor, in part, for hiding behind the skirt of his reporter; and it’s wrong and cowardly in itself to make threats as happened to Frketch.  Frketch wasn’t indecent in her editorializing of a news story, but bad reaction to editorializing in a news story is to be expected.  Because it’s unprofessional.  People get angry when their intelligence is insulted.  When you’re a mouthpiece for one side and pretend not to be, some people blame you.  And if you don’t realize you’re being a mouthpiece, then maybe you’re not clever enough to be writing from authority.

And if Frketch doesn’t understand straight reporting, then she can blame her teachers, in part.  It’s wrong to harass her, but that’s the world we live in today, unfortunately.

-30-

Critical Race Theory is disgusting tripe

Vincent J. Curtis

10 Sept 22

RE: Why Critical Race Theory is vital.  Op-ed by Cole Gately.  The Hamilton Spectator 10 Sept 22

The piece at reference is a disgusting piece of tripe, and the Spectator ought to be ashamed to have published it.

The prevalence of crime in Canada does not make Canada “systemically criminal,” and hence neither does the prevalence of racist acts in Canada make Canada “systemically racist.”

What makes Canada systemically racist is the Indian Act and Article 25 of the Charter.  These provisions create in law a privileged class of people based on racial heritage.  So, if you want to rid Canada of the last vestige of systemic racism, repeal the Indian Act and denounce the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights.  We’re all indigenous - to the plant earth.

The central tenant of Critical Race Theory is that white people are racist because they are white.  And that only white people are culpably racist.  The falsity and self-contradiction of the central holdings of CRT are manifest, and the only reason CRT is taken seriously at all is because of the agenda it supports.  The authors of CRT ought to be disgraced and run out of the academy for manifest incompetence.

White Replacement Theory has more plausibility than CRT, and, funny thing, CRT supports WRT.  We mustn’t teach our children that they are inherently and incurably evil because they were born white.

-30-

 

RHVP Inquiry: What does the Spec know about Tradewind?

 Why not ask Tradewind Scientific?

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Sept 22

RE: Secret Red Hill documents reveal turmoil at city hall.  Matthew Van Dongen.  The Hamilton Spectator 8 Sept 22.

The curious thing about the released documents is why the Spectator didn’t simply ask Tradewind Scientific for their report directly?  The report of 2014 was apparently unsolicited and not paid for by the city.  It wasn’t privileged in any way.  Besides, it’s now obsolete, and only of historical value.  Why ask the city for a copy?

In no way was Tradewind’s unsolicited “report” to Gary Moore a secret.  We get unsolicited advertising in our inboxes all the time, and most get deleted.  The Tradewind “report” was nothing but a clever advertising ploy by Tradewind in the hopes of getting a contract from the city: here’s a sample of what we can do for you.

The problem is, the test protocol Tradwind would use, ASTM E-1859, is meaningless when used on the RHVP.  Besides, more than coefficient of friction obtained in a test protocol is at play in real world conditions involving traffic accidents.  Maybe that’s why Moore thought the report “made no sense” and hadn’t uncovered a road safety issue.  Hence, the deletion.

But somebody knew that Tradewind sent an email to Gary Moore in 2014, and revealed it in 2018.  Was that person connected to Tradewind in the hopes of getting a contract from the city?  Could there be a whiff of blackmail here, after a big deal was made of the prevalence of accidents on the RHVP by the Spectator in 2019?

What does the Spectator know that it’s not revealing?  Did Tradewind let the Spectator know of its adverse 2014 report that Moore deleted as “making no sense?”  Did the Spectator then go through FOIA to cover the fact that it got tipped off by Treadwind and already knew of the adverse conclusions?

Curious minds would like to know.

-30-

The right to self-defence in Canada

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Sept 22

Before all the political exploitation of the tragedy in Saskatchewan hits, let’s make a few points about it clear.  Ten people died and eighteen more were wounded because they lacked the means of self-defence.  All of them lacked the means to defend themselves against a knife attack.

They also lacked the right of self-defence.  Think of that, your endangering of your potential killer is a greater violation of the law than your being killed.  If you think this is crazy, it is; but that’s the position of Canada’s Prime Minister, whether he understands it or not.

The right of self-defence is empty if you lack the means of self-defence.  Taking away the means of self-defence is tantamount to removing the right of self-defence.  It makes a mockery of the right.  When the Trudeau government confiscates “assault rifles” and bans handguns, he makes mockery of the right of self-defence because he is confiscating your means of self-defence.

If the two knife wielding killers had been met with and AR-15 or a Glock, they would, in effect, be bringing knives to a gun fight, and their careers as killers would quickly be over.  But the Trudeau government thinks it wrong for you to be able to defend yourself in that manner.  Maybe they think it isn’t sporting to turn the tables on your potential killer.

Banning guns deprives you of the means of self-defence, and makes mockery of the right of self-defence.

-30-