Montreal's McGill University Must Expel Anti-Semitic Student Rep

Photo:Paul Lowry, Flickr

Montreal is a city rich with educational institutions. One such venerable university, McGill University, is what many consider to be Montreal's "Ivy League University".

McGill has had its share, recently, of problems with the Jewish community. In February of 2016, almost 60% of those who voted supported the adoption of the BDS movement, a movement that encourages consumers to Boycott, Divest, and Sanction companies profiting from Israeli manufacturing.

The movement has been in existence since 2005, and has faced pushback from the International community - Jewish and non-Jewish organizations alike.

Though they may claim their mission is to help the Palestinian people allegedly "oppressed" by Israel, the very nature of the movement is not to help others, but to punish Israel. This piece very deftly explains why the BDS movement is one of hate, and is not pro-Palestinian.

The McGill vote represented only 3% of the 30,000 students at the University, and when presented for ratification just a few days later, it was struck down 57%-43% (with 6% abstaining).

That left a stain on McGill's reputation, but with the University's denouncement of the movement in the days that followed, things seemed to right themselves again over the past 12 months.

Until now.

On Thursday, February 9, 2017, it came to light that a McGill student representative, in the faculty of arts, had tweeted, urging his followers to "punch a Zionist today." Igor Sadikov tweeted it Monday, but it only became known on Thursday.

The tweet - now deleted - looked like this:

The word spread swiftly, through social media, and there were immediate calls denouncing it - and the student.

B'nai Brith, and CIJA - the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs - called for the student to resign, stating that not only was the tweet anti-Semitic, but called for violence as well.

Sadikov released a statement justifying his tweet - but how such a thing can be justified is beyond me. His statement reads:

Statement regarding the tweet I recently published: pic.twitter.com/kjQb0NprZU

— igor (@vokidas) February 9, 2017

Unacceptable.

See, he - and others who support his point of view - may see Zionists as separate from Jews, but that is a fallacy. Yes, there are non-Jewish Zionists, and there are Jews who are not Zionists. The definition of a Zionist is - from the Jewish Virtual Library:

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. 

It's truly difficult to justify "punch a Zionist" as anything but anti-Semitic, especially given his expanded explanation. It is thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

Those of us who support Israel, and stand up for her right to exist, also recognize that there has never been a Palestinian State, and rather than go into the why's and wherefores of the conflict that spawned the BDS movement, I will refer you to this short video:



While I have been very outspoken about my love for Israel, and my support of the policies that govern the land in the name of security and safety, that's not what I'm here to do at this time.

This piece addresses the danger, and the infuriating sentiment expressed by Sadikov - and supported by those with the same thoughts.

First of all, he is a student representative - elected to that role by fellow students. Imagine how many of them are Jewish, and had no idea he harbored this kind of hatred.

A report on the incident, in The Algemeiner, states this:

According to Canadian human rights organization B’nai Brith Canada, Sadikov is a prominent supporter of the BDS movement at McGill. He is also the former news editor of The McGill Daily, which, as The Algemeiner reported, openly admitted to censoring pro-Israel content on the grounds that Zionism is a product of “settler colonial ideology.”

Secondly, he is advocating for violence (and his weak justification "I do not condone nor justify violence on the basis of membership in any identity group" belies that). This puts Jewish students in danger, but it goes further.

If this student is allowed to stay at the University, given his initial tweet and suggested action against Jews, it sends a very strong message to ALL who discriminate based on identity in any group.

This puts all students at risk: visible minorities, disabled, LGBTQ, students who speak different languages - or even just French or just English - or even those who are perceived as different from the attacker. Bullies need no reason to target others; intolerant hate-filled individuals go beyond that: their reasons are differences of others, based on identity.

The precedent it sets, should he be allowed to stay, is treacherous for all students not only at McGill University, but anywhere, any level institution, any city, any province, and yes, any country where hate speech is allowed to flourish unpunished.

Note: there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. This is a textbook example of hate speech, which is never to be allowed, and can be prosecuted.

McGill University is an internationally renowned institution. Its international-student body is extensive (roughly one-third of enrolment is international, according to the registration statistics as of Fall 2016):

What would happen, should potential students in the international community were to find out that a known anti-Semite, elected to be a student rep, and remaining untouched by the University itself, is encouraging the rest of the student body to punch Zionists? (And I don't care if the tweet has been deleted, it's out there and has been publicized - the damage is done)

What would happen, should parents/family members in the international community, with students already at McGill University, were to hear that a known hater was allowed to stay, not only harboring hateful thoughts toward those with whom he disagrees, but encouraging violence - and most likely continuing those thoughts among friends and like-minded classmates?

McGill University would lose a great deal of its income, should that happen. Who knows? It may already be happening, with this incident being reported throughout Canada, the USA, Israel, and other countries.

Sadikov has angered an untold number of people, Jews and non-Jews alike. If anyone is not enraged by his tweet, and his attitude, I would urge them to ask themselves why (that is, if they don't already know it is because they agree with him).

History is a perfect, effective guideline for us to use to inform our actions. It may not have been during Sadikov's lifetime - it wasn't during mine - but it was not too long ago that Jews in Eastern Europe were attacked in this very same manner.

Note: I do not invoke comparisons to Nazi Germany casually. I recognize the profound depths of horror that period in history represents, but it's an apt comparison to draw here. Not only because of 1930s Nazism, but because there are anti-Semites who are continuing to perpetuate their hatred even today.

There was no Internet then, but there was media, and there were posters, songs, jingles, and directives from Nazi Germany to perpetrate violence upon Jews. 

Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, and the implementation of  "The Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish people, was a place and time of hatred, based on identity. There are many, many stories of Jews being accosted in the streets, Jewish men being subjected to scissors cutting off their beards and hair, for purposes of humiliation as well as stripping them of their identity. There are many stories of Jews being tormented en masse, unable to fight back for fear of being killed - because those humiliating them were armed, and sanctioned by Hitler's government.

Jews were subjected to hatred borne by those who needed very little in the way of a reason in order to harm, or kill them. 

And now, Jewish students - Zionists or not - are being subjected to the very real possibility of violence against them, encouraged by a member of the student body who has been elected to represent the students in the faculty of arts.

In fact, the law student who brought the tweet to the public eye (Simon Paransky) stated, in an interview:

“It’s appalling that a student representative is calling for violence against a certain group of people,” Paransky said. “And it is not an isolated incident. It is happening in a context of increased hostility to students on campus, mostly students of Jewish faith but also students of non-Jewish faith who are allies of Jewish students.”

How is the person who unleashed this upon the student community at McGill University being allowed to stay on at the school?

There are many of us, mobilizing to protest this student's existence at McGill. We are protesting his continued status as student rep, and as student at all. We are calling upon McGill University to expel him, or - as the most recent reports say - force his resignation. 

If he is allowed to stay, I hope the community - local, and international - will govern themselves accordingly. Funding should be stopped. Enrolment should be stopped, and perhaps transfers out of McGill become the norm.

Sadly, it is only the threat of financial loss - and/or negative publicity - that will force the hand of the University.

This is not going away. Nor should it. We should ALL be speaking up, we should ALL be railing against the tolerance of violent rhetoric, anti-Semitism, and hatred condoned by an internationally renowned institution of higher education.

Because today it is anti-Semitism - tomorrow it could be any of a number of other groups targeted for violence and hatred.

And the way I see it, if McGill does nothing about this, they are condoning - perhaps even endorsing - the call for violence, and should be consequenced accordingly.

One last note: where is Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau? This story has been circulating for almost 24 hours, and he has always been quick to condemn violence against Muslims, but seemingly silent when Jews have been involved.

As the leader of our country, as a Montrealer himself, he should be speaking up, condemning the student, and adding to the pressure upon McGill to expel Sadikov permanently.

Along with our call to protest McGill's harboring of an anti-Semitic student rep, we call upon the Prime Minister to speak up against this student and join us in our urging McGill University to act.

Folks, not everyone is an activist. Some people just prefer to stay out of it, and disengage while harboring their own private thoughts. 

But even if you disavow this student and what he stands for, in your thoughts, it is not enough. If we all remain silent, what can change? Silence can be deadly.

I will end with the wise words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

If you are as incensed as so many of us are, please speak up. Share this article. Talk about it with your family, friends, kids, parents. Let McGill University know that you do not support their permitting Igor Sadikov to remain on campus, much less a student representative.

You are speaking up for this situation, but you are also investing in the future of humanity - one person at a time.

Will you join us?

Yes, I Am Canadian; What About It?

This is what my Facebook Timeline looks like to those who are not on my "Friends" list

It has become a constant prediction, whenever I engage in online discussions about the American election: the accusation of excessive Canadianism in an American-centric topic.

It first started back when I began to discover my conservatism, and was "outed" by the husband of someone I had considered to be a friend: "It should be noted that Lissa is Canadian. A hike should be taken."

It bothered me back then, and I suppose it still does, to a degree, but I'm better able to combat it now that I've had some practice.

The latest happened in a Facebook group for Jewish conservatives. Not American conservatives. Jewish. I was added to the group by an American friend with whom I share much of the same mindset.

In discussing Donald Trump (did you think otherwise? Have you been following me at all?), I got heavily involved in expressing my concern, even disdain, for a candidate who has shown no conservatism, no decency, no presidential stature at all.

At one point, a Trump-supporting member decided to check me out on Facebook. Now, I am the maven of privacy options, so all any non-Friend can see is my display photos. The above photo is a screenshot of what non-followers see when they go check me out.

(For the record, I added the overlay of the Israeli flag some years back, and haven't changed it as most of Facebook has, with the terrorist-attack-du-jour; my support of Israel is strong, constant, unwavering, and proud).

That's what this mini-Sherlock saw, and gleefully brought it to the group.

"Maybe the flag of Canada as your cover photo makes it difficult for some of us to take your points seriously."

To which I replied,

"I didn't realize free speech had borders.

Look, you know nothing about me. Yes, I'm Canadian, but anyone who thinks they should only opine about their own country is living in ignorance.

EVERYTHING that happens in the world affects us. EVERYTHING that happens in the USA affects Canada.

I may not be directly affected but loved ones and friends are.

And until the admins of this group tell me I cannot post because of my geographical location, I will continue to have an informed opinion as loud as I'm permitted."

She continued - calling me a troll because I don't have a vote south of the border (this person was, the next day, made moderator of the group - o joy). It became a topic of conversation then, others coming in from both sides.

One admin said that I have no say, no place commenting, based on my nationality.

Someone else refuted that, with a third coming in and saying, "why is she allowed in the group, then? Are we preparing ourselves for Trump's stomping on the First Amendment?"

Another admin - anti-Trump - made the point that their "logic" would mean none of us who lives outside of Israel has a right to comment on Israeli current events. A third admin - also anti-Trump - confirmed that there is no support among the admins of the group for kicking out non-Americans.

I made a statement that I've continued to make throughout:

"If I were pro-Trump, my nationality would not even be a blip on your radar."

No one bit - except for the support I got from those in agreement.

Today, it happened again - same group.

In a discussion about Trump somehow being better than Clinton because he never raised taxes, never voted for a war, etc etc etc, I commented that it's irrelevant, as he has no political record whatsoever.

Of course, this brought in the pro-Trumper who tried to present logic that the post was not about Trump (it was - Clinton was never mentioned, and I made note that the post actually served as the pro-DJT ad Trump's campaign has yet to release).

The Trumper didn't like my logic. She refuted with, "I would make a bet that you bashed Stephen Harper in your election too."

That was her oh-so-cute way of revealing to the as-yet-uninformed of the group that I'm Canadian.

Though I owed her nothing - and said as much - I proudly proclaimed that I had been active for over a year, campaigning with and for our local Conservative Party candidate. That I had proudly blogged about the campaign, gone door-to-door, and had been privileged to meet and shake hands with our former Prime Minister, and his family, expressing my support to the Harpers at all 4 of the rallies I was lucky enough to attend.

The back-and-forth continued, with my letting her know, "Yes, I'm Canadian, but that cud's already been chewed in this group."

She became snarkier with each post, somehow blaming Trudeau on me (now, THAT'S an insult!), and when I continued to rebut with calm, semi-bemused posts of truth and logic, she went all-out Trumper on me, insulting me and calling me names.

So let's talk about my crime of Canadianistic origin.

Does it make me less informed about the USA?

Well, there are Canadians who are ill-informed, uninformed, or uninterested in American politics. Many of those don't even inform themselves about Canadian politics (we call those people Liberals).

But I am not the only Canadian who does learn everything I can about the USA.

First of all, it's unavoidable

 Anyone who watches American television has no choice but to be bombarded with news stories, updates, commercials, comments about the candidates and the current events. And our Canadian news shows carry stories about the election happenings south of the border as well.

If you have friends, family, loved ones in the USA, you are likely hearing about this election - even if you never heard much about prior years. This one is different. This one has sensationalism.

And if you're on Facebook, with even ONE American friend, you're going to be seeing headlines. It's unavoidable.

Secondly, it's interesting

I know, now, that I should have stuck with Political Science way back when. I might have had a different path in my life, but that's okay; I learned later, and I learned intensively.

But the process, the patterns, the topics, the candidates...they're all interesting. They provide a lot of food for thought, and a lot of information for those of us who are discerning enough to want to know about what's outside the box of our lives.

Most importantly. it is obligatory

My mom had a saying: "when the USA sneezes, Canada catches a cold."

I recently learned, from my dad, that my grandfather had another saying: "When the USA gets a cold, Canada gets pneumonia."

You get the idea; we are affected. Our economy, our travel, our relations with the USA and with other countries, our security, our trade, our human interests. Everything we do is governed by some political subset of ideas, no matter where we live.

And sharing the longest undefended border in the world with the USA, Canada stands to endure much in the ways of the above-mentioned issues no matter who gets elected in November.

But let's go outside of that. 

Are we that provincial, that small-minded, that tunnel-visioned that no other country's current events should be of interest to us? And if it is of interest to us, are we that narrowly governed by society that we should not engage in meaningful - CIVIL - discourse on those events?

Is any topic of current events a proprietary issue?

Perhaps a suicide bomb in Kabul doesn't affect my day. I will wake and go to sleep the same ways I did the day before, my food will be as plentiful, my technology will work,  my kids will be happy and healthy, my dog will get walked, I'll enjoy laughing and sharing via phone calls, and I'll still be able to catch up on the latest Netflix offerings.

But to think that suicide bomb in Kabul doesn't affect everything in this world is incredibly tone deaf. Of course it affects us. It means there are terrorists who are continuing to harm others in the name of their extremist ideologies, it means that no one is safe because the next terrorist emboldened by that successful bombing may be on a plane to North America, or Europe, and we will - not "may" - be affected when that happens.

Do we stick our heads in the sands of our own countries, our own states or provinces, our own towns or boroughs, and breathe in only the air that is local to us just because we don't vote in other countries?

Or do we continue to thrive as citizens of the world, taking interest, learning facts and information, absorbing realities, and talking about it with other citizens of the world in order to be prepared for What Comes Next, no matter how directly or indirectly we are affected?

I don't know about you, but I'll take the latter.

Ignorance, friends, is not bliss.

No matter where you live.

I Fought The Law And *I* Won

 

I recently got a ticket. It was March 17, 2015 (I remember the date well, it was a dear friend's birthday), and I was on the way to pick up my kid from school.

What Happened:

I was approaching a school zone, so I knew the speed limit was lower (30km), and had slowed down. I stopped at the corner where the stop sign was, but because there was a massive snow bank on the lawn just beyond the stop sign, I then inched forward to ensure that I was safe to cross.

There were no other cars, so I proceeded to drive on. As I was halfway through the intersection, I looked to my right. There was a police car parked halfway down the block, and he began to drive when he saw me. (I think he believed my looking directly at him was a sign of guilt - but some people do check all directions as they are crossing an intersection)

I saw his lights behind me, pulled over, and could not believe he was citing me.

When he came to my window, he informed me that I had not made my complete stop. I was adamant in my own defense.

I told him, "Look, you're going to do whatever you will do, but I know I made my stop, because I always stop at the stop signs."

He said, "Maybe you usually do, but you didn't this time."

(I didn't cry - once, some years back and very stressed at the time, I did, and the officer let me off with a verbal warning. )

He wrote out the ticket - $162 and 3 demerit points - and when he handed it to me, he told me I had 30 days to pay or contest it.

That gave me an idea. I had never contested a ticket before because the few I've received (5, maybe 6 in all my years of driving) have been for speeding, and I owned up to it.

I've never been stopped for a stop sign violation, and in fact, people who don't stop are one of my two biggest pet peeves (the other is how few people signal).

So I decided to contest the ticket. Sent in my "not guilty" plea and waited.

I got the notice in August, to appear November 10th, at 4 p.m. And though I knew I was in the right, it was the one thing I needed to get through, the one thing that hung over my head for weeks­.

My Day In Court

 

Prior to going to court, I made out a diagram. I showed the two streets - the one I was on, and the side street - as well as the directions (N, S, E, W). I also drew the stop sign, and the snow bank. As well, the police officer's location was noted.

On the diagram, I wrote out my notes - simply what happened - and took it with me, in a folder along with the notice to appear, and my original ticket stub.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I checked in with the security guard, who crossed my name off a list he had. He pointed me to Room 1.

(NB: I saw no other rooms. Room 1 is aptly named but we live in a small suburb, with a municipal court that serves various municipalities on the West Island...one courthouse, one courtroom - but well named).

He advised me to turn off my cell, which I'd done in the car. I told him I'd done so; was I thinking that by showing how compliant I am, I'd somehow gain points? Maybe karma points. But the security guard had nothing to do with my hearing. Silly me.

I entered the courtroom and another security guard took my invitation notice to appear. He handed it to a young woman sitting to the side of the witness stand, who placed it on her desk.

(NB: the witness stand is literally a stand; no seat, just a podium built into the structure of the main "stage" in the room; I'd have taken photos but something tells me A) it wasn't a good idea and B) it wouldn't have spoken well for me when it was my turn to appear)

I watched 3 cases unfold while I waited for my turn. When one woman pleaded her case (talking on her cell phone without hands-free), I listened carefully. The judge advised her that she is under no obligation to prove her innocence; the prosecution is obliged to show evidence as to the defendant's guilt.

This is not new to me, but it was slightly startling to hear what I've previously heard/read in criminal cases spoken in traffic court.

The woman was found not guilty, and when she left, I gave her a smile, which she returned.

Before the next case was called, my name was called out - I went to the front where I was handed the police officer's report. No longer do the officers have to appear in order for the defendant to argue their case. The report acts as their testimony.

While that kind of differs from the "if the cop doesn't show up, you win by default" adage, it also speaks to the advantage of the defendant, as the officer is not present to answer questions to challenge the defendant's testimony.

I took my report - which is given as it is a defendant's right to know the evidence being used in the case - and sat back down to read it.

When I read my report, the officer had claimed he had a clear view, unobstructed. Yeahrightsure. I knew differently.

But it got me nervous all over again, despite the confidence that had been instilled in me by a Pep Talk before I left.

Nevertheless, I breathed through the nervousness (and drank a lot of water - good thing I had brought a full bottle) and when it was my turn, I walked confidently up to the podium.

My Turn On The Stand

I was sworn in (no Bible, just raised hand) and instead of Cell Phone Woman's "I absolutely do!" vehemence, I simply and quietly answered, "I do." - and the judge read the report handed to him by the prosecutor.

He then looked at me and said, "Ms. Albert, what happened?"

I calmly (I think) went through my side of things. I added that I always make my stops, that I set an example for my kids and that my son is a new driver for whom I was being extra demonstrative in law-abiding behavior. I even mentioned that I have no stop-sign violations on my record, which has very few traffic violations in my 30+ years of driving. I had listened to the others testify in their own defense, and anecdotal/character points such as these were common.

But I did not ramble on. I made my points, told my side, and stopped when the facts were said.

When I was done - and I had indicated my diagram - the prosecutor asked me the following questions:

"Can you describe how you stopped?"
This was easy. The Montreal Gazette had published an article before the summer began, outlining the ways in which drivers had to be careful, and described what a legal stop is. From memory (I'm blessed/cursed/blessed with a sharp memory for details), I used the exact words: "I applied my brake, and felt the car rock back onto its back wheels. I even counted to 2 or 3, before proceeding through."

"How fast were you going when you came to the stop sign?"
(I think they were fishing - this wasn't even an issue on the ticket)
I told her I was fully aware of the school zone, that my nephews had attended that school and I drive past it very often, so I was either going my 30km or slightly under, in anticipation of the stop.

"When did you first see the police officer?"
Also easy. He was parked halfway down the block (and he had indicated as much in his report; the only difference was his account stated he could see all points of the intersection clearly, and I knew otherwise). I saw him only after I had inched up, had seen that there were no other cars and was already going through the intersection. I said, "I saw him parked there, and as I looked toward his car, he began to drive toward the corner, at which point he put on his lights."

Clearly, if I only saw him as I was driving off, there's no way he saw me at the corner.

She verified that I was already driving, and I said yes, my foot was on the accelerator as I was resuming my driving.

She said to the judge, "I have no further questions." And she sat down.

The judge asked if I wanted to submit my diagram into evidence. He said "I can't use it in your case if you don't."

I said, "Oh, for sure, please!" And handed it to the prosecutor - perhaps a little more enthusiastically than I had planned. She stamped and initialed it, and handed it to the judge.

The Verdict:

 

The judge glanced at my diagram, referred to his report, and said, "Ms. Albert, this is a straightforward accounting of your side of the story, which I find credible. I find you not guilty."

(I so wish I had a video of this - now that it's over and done with, it's pretty cool, and that Moment was the best!)

(I think) I kept the huge grin from my face. I did smile, say, "Thank you, Sir," and rush to gather my purse, water bottle, folder, and book, and then out the door.

I did not keep the grin back then, though. I know I flashed it wide as I emerged into the lobby. The two security guards returned it as I thanked them and left the building.

It was an exhilarating drive home. When I got there, I recounted the entire story for my son, and then went to share the news with others on phone and text.

What Did I Learn?

•  If you think you're in the right, stand up for yourself. The worst that can happen is that you pay the fine anyway. The best? Well, I experienced it.

•  If you think the police are overstepping, again, stand up for yourself. There have to be checks and balances in our system, but there are none. So it's up to citizens to stand up and say, "I did not do what you said I did, and just because you have the pretty lights on top of your car does not give you the right to accuse me falsely."

•  I respect the law enforcement in our society. From police officers on the beat, in traffic, on patrol, first responders, and the military - I actually revere those who put their lives on the line, daily, for our safety. But I do not believe all traffic violations are warranted, and I decided to do something about this one.

•  When I am in the wrong - and I have been - I take the ticket, pay it, and do better next time. But when I am in the right - this is the result.

•  Because there are no checks and balances other than citizens who decide to fight their tickets, there is no consequence for an officer who writes an unwarranted ticket. I wonder how much is spent in time and resources to hold traffic court for so many people who are fighting their tickets.

•  What if the officers whose tickets were thrown out were somehow consequenced? Perhaps they should pay a percentage of the ticket fine into a charity. I know there are police officers who write tickets to meet monthly quotas; in fact, just 4 days before I was ticketed, there was a news story here in Montreal stating that some officers were doing just that. 

• If that's the case, and police officers had thrown-out cases added to their records so that they were identified as "over-ticketing", or "ticket-happy", perhaps there would be fewer traffic tickets handed out and we could all save a little time, money, and stress.

• I can't imagine the prosecutor - or judge - finds the work very stimulating. But I commend them for their respectful and thorough handling of my case, and those I saw before me.

I must say, all month, I was dreading the 10th of November, 4 p.m.; I was nervous, and even though my worst-case scenario (mentioned above) was nothing frightening, it's still nerve-wracking to go before a judge, not knowing what the proceedings are like or what to expect, and thinking that the officer who wrote the ticket might be there to face in person.

After the verdict, I was not only exhilarated, I was really quite proud: I did something that did take some courage, and I followed through to its (happy) ending.

Now, it's smooth sailing through November; the Day Of Court is over, it was successful, and I am not only sitting with all my demerit points intact, but with almost $200 that did NOT have to be spent in this pre-holiday month.

Time to go price the iPad I want...

My Facebook Acquaintances Frighten Me

There are some of you who will read this who actually frighten me.

Not many things frighten me. Bugs do. Spiders. Bees terrify me. Thunderstorms are a fear I've never conquered.

But you frighten me most of all.

Because your anti-Stephen Harper hatred has the ability to throw this country I love into chaos and turmoil.

For you, voting is about exercising your right to hate, not your right to change things.

How do I know that? You've basically said it.

"Vote anyone but Harper this election" - how ignorant a comment that is! There are many, many candidates in this election. You may not live in Quebec, but if you did, would voting Bloc Québecois suit your needs as long as it brought down the Conservatives? Would breaking up the country be fine as long as Stephen Harper were voted out?

See why that's frightening?

What about the Communist Party? Is that okay to vote, because it's "anyone but Harper"? Would living under State-mandated law be fine because it's not Conservative?

Would you be happy with families relegated to only one child because the rule of their dictator states that?

Or being thrown in prison for just wearing the wrong color? Or being interrogated for no reason whatsoever?

(I know, some of you will throw Law C-51 at me, with the accusations that the law allows that kind of thing - my suggestion to you is GET INFORMED)

There are many movements this election calling for the cutesy "ABC" - Anyone But Conservative.

But very few of them know why. Or what the "A" will mean.

Change for its own sake, with absolutely no concrete knowledge of what the change may be or how it may affect this country, is all people keep pushing. With no understanding of the underlying, massive consequences of change.

And that danger, that ignorance, that HATRED without a concrete reason...

That's why you frighten me.

There are many of you who spew the rhetoric. And I've challenged many on Facebook to come out and debate it with me. You want to talk about "how Harper has screwed up Canada"? Then bring a gun to a gun fight, not a rubber spatula.

Spewing talking points, vague nonsense and pure hatred is exactly what negative people do.

But I find VERY few of you who stand FOR something.

And that's not only frightening, that is a tragic state of affairs.

You aren't standing up for the leader you believe in - you're standing against a Leader you don't like personally.

Shallow much?

I'm reminded of a great Statesman, Alexander Hamilton:

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

And those of you to whom I'm referring are not standing for anything; you are falling for everything.


Justin Trudeau is not ready. And while that's been said, his gaffes have proven that over and over. Add to that the fact that he supports the disastrous Iran deal struck by the USA, as a Jew I am flabbergasted and repulsed. As world citizens, we should ALL be outraged by the implications.

His latest "promise" is to "tell Putin off to his face" - not only is that utterly laughable, he ridiculed Stephen Harper for doing the same thing. Only when Harper did it (telling Putin he would shake hands but that the latter has to get out of Ukraine), he did it the way gentlemen with principles do.

Running the country at a deficit for 3 years - promising to do so - as well as scoffing at the tax cuts Stephen Harper put in place for families - shows that Trudeau (living his silver-spooned lavish life) doesn't have Canada's best interests at heart.

NDP's Tom Mulcair is as socialist as they come; the NDP has always been a socialist party, but Mulcair has ratcheted that up with promises to rescind the tax cuts, raise taxes exorbitantly high, and spend, spend, spend. In order to spend, he has to have the money and the only way to do that is to tax Canadians till it hurts.

He also refuses to name Islamic extremism - especially in the face of last year's attacks on Canada by two radicalized terrorists.

Another blind, ill-equipped big spender of our money.

 

But no one has come up with good reasons to support these candidates. I, on the other hand, have spent the past year offering proof of Stephen Harper's track record when it comes to the interests of Canadians.  And will gladly offer it again.

I find many of his detractors don't have families - so the family income splitting, child tax benefits, family leave benefits don't resonate with them.

Some of his haters don't work at regular jobs, so they not only don't care about the paycheck taxes Trudeau is promising, they WANT the social programs to keep them afloat. Free stuff!

I just find it discouraging that those who are denouncing Harper are promoting no one but this vague "change" and "Anyone Else" they seem to feel is the answer. I find it discouraging that people whose priorities year round are food pictures, animal photos, celebrities and travelogues suddenly find a political voice - and it is used to say nothing positive, only negative. Nothing pro. Just anti.

Those of you who stand for nothing are falling for anything.

And it makes me sad to see how gullible Canadians are. We've seen the destruction of America across the border due to the promises of Empty Suit Obama. I pray we don't end up with the same kind of turmoil here due to low-informed haters voting in the wrong party come next Monday.