Well, now; lookie here, willya? The Smoking Stasi have new marching orders. Check out what the Fiberals tried to do on the Q-T. It seems that the high-falutin’ Mr “I-Know-What’s-Best-For-You” Jim Watson (Dolt McSquinty’s Ontario Fiberal Minister of Health Promotion) has nothing but your best interests at heart when it comes to banning smoking. Unless you go someplace like a casino, where the Ontario government gets a cut.

Government-owned casinos in Windsor and Niagara Falls are allowed to build outdoor shelters for smokers, even though bars and restaurants in Ontario cannot do so under a provincewide smoking ban, Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson said yesterday.

The Smoke Free Ontario Act, which became law in June, doesn’t allow bars and restaurants to provide enclosed areas to protect smoking patrons from the weather, but Mr. Watson said casinos aren’t covered by that provision because their main business is not serving food or alcohol.

Yeppers. If you slide on in to your local pub (maybe run by a guy having almost as much fun making ends meet as you are) and you feel like a smoke while you’re there, you gotta stand outside in the elements and get soaked, freeze your arse off, or whatever. That’s because, under that lovely little thing called the Smoke Free Ontario Act, that the Grits decided to beat us over the head with, bars and restaurants aren’t allowed to provide even semi-enclosed areas to protect smoking customers from the rain, snow, sleet and other things that aren’t supposed to bother mailmen.

But HEY! Guess what? If you wanna go and blow a bunch of your hard-earned dough in some slots joint where the back-scratching swine from the Big Smoke can snout up to the trough, you get to light up in a jolly little “outdoor covered structure” with walls and a roof and probably ashtrays, too.

Can you say “bullshit,” boys and girls? I knew you could. As the Freeps put it in their editorial page today:

Uh-oh.

This sounds like trouble, smells like a rat and looks like one rule for the government, another for the private sector. To be sure, it’s an injustice of the highest order for Ontario’s hospitality industry.

It’s cynical, it’s hypocritical, it’s a betrayal and it may mark the point at which Ontarians finally lose all faith in the provincial Liberals.

Well, okay. Maybe something good will come out of all this two-faced sanctimony, after all.

We were told, in the most melodramatic of tones, by the Fiberals that the smoking ban was being brought in to protect workers from the Great Plague Of Western Civilization, second hand smoke. The latest HypoGrit hyperbole is that these little smoking pits are all fine and dandy because, Watson has barfed, employees will not have to enter these shelters.

HEY, ASSHOLE: pub and eatery owners were saying the same God damned thing over a year ago when you saddled them with your little bullshit law in the first place!! They also told you that if make going out a pain in the ass for smokers, places like them were going to lose money. Could it be that you’ve finally gotten it through your thick skulls that smokers are going to go to some other place to smoke… and take their money with them? Just like bingo halls and charities said they would.

The casino plan quietly received the green light as revenues plummet because of the tough, new no-smoking law.

Well, DUH! The Grits hooted away that there would be no such drop in revenues because, with all those nasty smokers out of the way, non-smokers would start coming out in droves and smokers would still keep coming out, anyway. Well, that never happened, did it?

News flash, HypoGrits: I smoke. It’s MY CHOICE. And I don’t like going to places where I can’t. Given the choice between a) going out and having to freeze my ass off and b) staying in and having a few friends over to watch the game, have some brews, scarf back some BBQ, whatever… I’m choosing B 9 times out of 10. I used to go out a lot; not anymore. And that’s why so many pubs and restaurants are closing, even though you boneheads said they wouldn’t. You assholes annoyed a bunch of us and cost plenty of other people their jobs.

And, come election day, we aren’t going to forget that.

Because it needs it, that’s why. Yeah, you heard that right. We get told over and over and over again about how Islam is “the religion of peace,” it’s not a threat to us, the majority of muslims just want to live and let live. And if you can’t get that through your head, then you must just not be tolerant enough. You’re just a mean, nasty, Islamophobic bigot who either, at best, is just too ignorant to know any better or, at worst, has some malevolant George-Bushesque hatred rooted deep in your worm-ridden heart.

Bullshit.

In all my years of listening to the acolytes of the multicult dogma who relentlessly bludgeon us with the claim that we can’t judge people by this or that or the other thing, there is one question that I have never, not even once, heard answered:

Just how God damned many times does a man have to see the same thing happen over and over and over and over and over and over again… before he’s allowed to say that he can see it coming?

Any takers? I didn’t think so. Muslims fly planes into buildings, we are told it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims turn a country into a medieval hellhole, we are told it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims blow themselves up on busses in London, it has nothing to do with Islam. Muslims (women, too) come out in support of a rape advocate, nothing to do with Islam. Muslims plot to murder Canadians and behead our Prime Minister, no Islam there.

Then why the hell do the perpetrators howl so long and loud that it IS all about Islam, and nothing else?  (Except for those nasty Jews, of course…)

And don’t give me any of that “those are just a few bad apples” bullshit. Spare me the myth of the vast, moderate muslim majority. I’ll stick with the evidence of my own eyes. Where was the “moderate muslim” outpouring of outrage when the TO17 got busted? I didn’t hear a peep. But they sure as hell came out in droves to get their knickers in a twist (and threaten violence in the name of their “peaceful religion”) over a few cartoons, didn’t they?

Britain’s independent Channel 4’s respected Dispatches programme sent a reporter undercover in several major and influential British mosques to see just what was being said behind Jack Q. Briton’s back. Some of what they found will be posted here, in three parts.

Today we start off with:

• Terrorists are innocent, because all kuffaar (that’s you and me) are liars; lying is part of their religion. They are the terrorists, not muslims, and all muslims should hate them.
• Sharia should be obeyed; not the law of the land.
• Muslim terrorists (who are all innocent) are better than non-muslims.
• Muslims should settle for nothing less than a total Islamic state.
• Apostates and homosexuals should be killed outright.
• Free speech is evil unless it incites violence against people muslims don’t like.
• Holy war is coming and you’d better be on the right side.
• Kuffaar schools corrupt your children.
• Women are inferior; beat them if they don’t do as they’re told.
• Pedophilia is fine and dandy.
• Be a bigot, but be two-faced about it so that your ass is covered.

You know, all that good, wholesome religion-of-peace that we have nothing to worry about kind of stuff. Think I’m making this shit up, do you? Well then, smartass, play the vid and see for yourself. And while you’re at it, ask yourself this:

If it can happen in England, just why can’t it happen here?

Part 2 tomorrow…

Yeesh. File this one under “why can I never be making this crap up,” if you will. Hat’s off to DMB, by the way, since that’s where I stumbled over this in the first place. What we have here is Sheik Abdullah Aal Mahmud, in a televised lecture given on the Bahrain boob toob, explaining the Religion-of-Perpetual-Outrage-approved method of slapping your missus around if she gets out of line. Because, after all, beating on women is all fine and dandy as long as it’s done the Islamic way, right?

Assholes.

…That’s how the Edmonton Sun’s Mindelle Jacobs summed it up in her latest column, and I think the description is bang-on. As for me, I decided that I would bide my time and give some consideration to this whole issue — or, as a friend of mine put it, “sit back, have a beer and cool your jets for a bit” — before writing about it.

By now, everybody and their dog knows about the latest in the long line of Stupid Judge Tricks to come out of the Ontario Court of Appeal. For either of you that haven’t heard yet, here it is: thanks to three social-engineering, can’t-resist-screwing-with-it, legislating-from-the-bench, judicial-robe-wearin’ shitskulls in TO (Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Justice Marc Rosenberg and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse), a five-year-old London boy now has one dad … and two moms. All three legally and equally his parents in the eyes of the law.

Uncharted waters, indeed.

Homosexuality lobbyists and advocacy groups, naturally, were practically dancing in the streets at the news. Other groups however, perhaps remembering history’s lessons about monkeying with society, were not amused at all. Me? I think this is a recipe for disaster.

And before any dickheads out there even think about lobbing some of that “keeping up with the times” bullshit at me: don’t even try it. You want to know what I think of that kind of bullshit logic? Do you? Just click on the pic on the left here and tell me what you think you see. Want to know what I see? I see about ten thousand socialists, all of them keeping up with the times. That’s what I think of the “you should change with the times” argument, so shove it up your ass. Just because a thing can be done does not automatically mean that it should be done and most of the monkeying with our society that I see going on in the last few years definitely should not be done if for no other reasons than that a) no one has bothered to seriously consider the long term effects of such tinkering with the very foundations of our civilisation and b) they serve no good purpose whatsoever other than catering to the self-centered “it’s all about me” types who stand to gain from these changes with no regard at all for the possible impacts on others.

You think child custody cases are an emotional meatgrinder for kids now? Wait till you see what happens when some poor kid, or kids, find themselves as the rope in a tug-o-war between 6 moms and 4 dads. What do you think will happen then? And don’t tell me that such a thing will never happen. Every bit of judicial idiocy in this country over the past 30-35 years — and its cultural backlash — has been predicted by socially conservative “fearmongering Chicken Littles” just like me and we’ve been right every God damned time!

So please piss off, shove that red herring up your ass and answer the God damned question: WHAT WILL HAPPEN THEN? Do you think these sociological busybodies even give a damn? Don’t count on it. All they give a shit about is whatever gives them a warm fuzzy feeling right now and to hell with anything else.

Maybe I’m wrong — and I hope I am — and this kid will grow up to be a perfectly happy, productive member of society with his head screwed on nice and straight. But what if I’m not wrong? What if, as a result of this little grand experiment, this kid ends up completely screwed up? As Jacobs put it:

But there are two troubling aspects to this ruling. First, the court of appeal wielded the inherent common-law power of judges to reinterpret the law.

This may be necessary in exceptional circumstances but in this case, surely our lawmakers are best suited to rewriting the law.

Secondly, the future consequences of such a profound redefinition of parenthood are unknown.

Unknown is one hell of an understatement. But hey, what’s the future welfare, mental health, etc of a bunch of snot-nosed brats worth when we’re busy casting off the tyranny of thousands of years of basic truth? Obviously not much. Some people, however, do give a shit:

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has called for a royal commission on the future of the family. Considering the furious pace of social and reproductive change in recent years, it’s a wise idea.

“It’s time to hit the pause button – especially as courts redefine basic terms like parenting – to analyze what the long-term outcomes of family-related policies are,” says Dave Quist, executive director of the institute.

“Any gap in existing legislation should not be filled solely by one court. Rather, it needs to be debated in the appropriate public forum – our legislatures and parliament,” he adds.

On a whole host of social issues with potentially far-reaching implications, however, our courts have been stepping in where our legislators fear to tread.

This may be to the tactical advantage of politicians – who can then blame the judiciary for uprooting traditional norms – but it’s a terrible way to set social policy.

You’re damned right it is. To voice your objection to this reckless endangerment to the future wellbeing of an entire generation of Canadian children, call or write your local Member of Parliament.

Well, it was only a matter of time before this happened, wasn’t it? It seems that immigrants — and, more importantly, citizens of convenience — aren’t going to be able to clamp onto the entitlement teat anymore. Hell, they might even lose their precious little citizenship security blanket! Whenever they bugger off back home again, they’re going to have to have their passports date-stamped:

The tracking policy surfaced two weeks ago after officers at Pearson airport were sent a memo from Ottawa ordering the mandatory stamping of the passports.

Anna Pape, of the Canada Border Services Agency, said the stamping policy has always been in the rule book.

“The stamping of permanent residents’ passports upon entry to Canada is nothing new,” Pape said in a statement. “It ensures the effective delivery of immigration programs.”

She said the dates help officers determine if an immigrant should still be here, since a person has to live in Canada for two of the last five years to remain an immigrant.

As you can immagine, citizens of convenience and their mouthpeices are all in an uproar about these ingrates losing their lifetime Get Out Of The Frying Pan Free card:

“This is outrageous,” Immigration lawyer Mendel Green said yesterday. “This will mean people will … be harassed on their return home.”

Well, I guess that depends on where you call “home,” doesn’t it? Back in July, the country was stunned to find that there were somehow FIFTY THOUSAND “Canadians” in Lebanon, all wailing for the government to come and get ’em the hell outta Dodge. I wonder how many of them would still be “Canadians” if that “two of the last five years” rule above — which has been on the books for decades but ignored by the Grits — was actually enforced?

My guess: about 2500.

You want to call yourself Canadian? Then you be Canadian. That means you spend most of your time here, contributing to the rest of the country. And if you’re not willing to do that, then you’re not good enough to live in my country! Get the hell out.

Don’t like that? Tough shit.

As we sit here in our nice comfortable and safe nation, complaining about what some bozo judge did to a Christmas tree, or about Christmas concerts in school getting renamed “winter festivals,” or people saying “happy holidays,” or any of the other gripes and groans that surface at this time of year, perhaps we should take just a minute or two to think about just how good we have it. There are plenty of people in the world who have one hell of a worse time of it than we do.

The Winterpeg Sun’s John Gleeson relates one such story today as he describes the plight of the oldest sect in Christendom, the one million Assyrian Christians currently living in Iraq:

Christians thrown to the lions in Iraq

By JOHN GLEESON

While Canada’s self-appointed guardians of Christmas dig up new evidence of persecution — a tree moved down the hall, a greeting without “merry” dutifully attached — real persecution against Christians is going on daily and is being largely ignored.

Nowhere is the situation as grave as in Iraq.

Since the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq’s one million Assyrian Christians — the oldest sect in Christendom — have been the target of a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Islamic extremists and Kurdish nationalists. Tens of thousands have fled the country for Syria, Jordan or Turkey.

This year has been the worst since the invasion. Church bombings, car bombings, kidnappings and killings have become commonplace.

In August, 13 Assyrian women in Baghdad were kidnapped and murdered. In October, a 14-year-old boy in Albasra was crucified and stabbed in the stomach in mockery of the death of Christ. Another 14-year-old boy in Baquba was decapitated in his workplace by veiled Muslims chanting “Allahu, Akbar! Allahu, Akbar!” Also that month, a priest was kidnapped, tortured and beheaded, supposedly over the Pope’s comments critical of Islam.

Indeed, in the wake of Benedict XVI’s September speech, extremists threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq unless the Pope apologized.

Except for a few Christian relief agencies and the Assyrians’ own news service, the bloodletting has been virtually unreported — lost in the sea of carnage that is today’s Iraq.

Assyrians themselves are calling on the western world to create a “safe zone” for Christians on the Nineveh Plains in northern Iraq (the Canadian-based Council of Assyrian Research and Development has posted a petition at www.cardonline.org). The European Parliament passed a resolution to that effect in April, but so far nothing has been done.

Meanwhile, Christmas has understandably gone underground in Iraq.

Due to “the grave security situation in the country,” Iraq’s Chaldean patriarch Emmanuel Delly has “appealed on safety grounds to Christians … to refrain from any public celebrations for Christmas.”

Christians hide in their homes and pray in secret. Priests are afraid to appear in public in their clerical robes, lest they be indiscriminately attacked. Schoolgirls have been warned by Muslim extremists to wear the hijab, and boys to dress in a “sombre manner,” or face the consequences under sharia law.

Truly a sad fate for a Christian community that traces its foundation back to 33 AD and St. Thomas and where most of the people still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the Apostles.

It’s ironic, but not really surprising, that the American-led occupation under President George W. Bush would usher in an era of atrocities against Iraq’s Christian minority. They were an easy revenge target for the majority Muslims, who have only been emboldened by the U.S. government’s apparent disregard for the Assyrians’ plight.

With more important geopolitical alliances to forge with the warring Muslim factions and the Kurds, you could say the Americans have thrown the Christians to the lions.

And remember, the same calamity could befall Pakistan’s three million Christians, already a persecuted minority, if things were to get really ugly in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Persecution? We don’t know the half of it.