Some things are sure bets: death, taxes, the cost of filling your car going up right before a long weekend.

And French Canadians pouting.

The latest tear-towel issue to emanate from Quebec involves last week's Heritage Classic N.H.L. game played in Calgary.  For those who missed it, the event was spectacular.  The weather, while cold, was workable.  The crowd was buzzing (and buzzed).  Of course, it helps that the good guys prevailed on the ice.

But not all was acceptable to our Eastern friends.  Not only did they suffer a Montreal Canadiens loss to the Flames, they also were forced to endure the unholiest of sins: The O Canada anthem in - gasp! - English.

As is typical, this outrage was of such magnitude that the Canadiens filed an official complaint with the league. 

I'm sure the N.H.L., currently dealing with such insignificant issues as the trade deadline, a rash of injured players due to 'head-shots', and franchises bleeding money, were more than happy to finally deal with a 'real' issue.

Donald Beauchamp, vice-president of communications for the Canadiens, wanted a few French words mixed in.  You know, to be fair - to represent the bilingual status of our country.  Like Quebec does with it's public signage.

Whoops! - my mistake.  It's illegal to have English signs for public services in that province.  Never mind.

Let's be real, here.  The game was in Calgary.  That's in Alberta, a province where French is the fourth - fourth!- most-spoken language.  Why should any consideration be given to a language that so few people speak?

To preempt the pouting?

I hate to get all geographical here, but this isn't Quebec.  This is Alberta, and we don't like to be told what to do on the best of days.  We especially do not tolerate having a foreign language shoved down our throats.

If Francophones such as Mr. Beauchamp have a problem with that, they are more than welcome to shut the hell up and stay home. 

Pardon my french.

Former P.C. rebel M.L.A. Raj Sherman recently announced his plan to run for the leadership of an unnamed Alberta political party.

Sherman, who became known for calling out his own governing party over their fumbling of the Health Care portfolio and subsequently found himself sitting as an independent, has been courted by opposition parties.

Whether or not these parties want the good doctor for his capabilities or to simply cash in on his current fame is a matter of conjecture.

Personally, I would love to see him in the Wildrose caucus in charge of the needed health care overhaul. 

But this latest move has led me to wonder if Raj is overestimating his worth.  He has only been an M.L.A. since 2008, and while his work on several committees is impressive we should remember that he was a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and Wellness - not a front-line warrior.

The fear now is that Dr. Sherman is beginning to believe his own press clippings. He would be an outstanding Health Minister for a government, but he has no qualifications to be the leader of any party.

If that is to be his next move, the only logical choice would be the Alberta Liberals who have long been on life-support.

The Alberta Party is without structure and an actual ideology, and is nothing more than a sad attempt by the political left at duplicating the success of the Wildrose Alliance.

The New Democrats will never even get close enough to touch the government benches let alone sit in them.  Plus, they already have a capable future leader in Rachel Notley. 

And the Wildrose Alliance enjoys the leadership of Danielle Smith, the rising star of Alberta's political scene. She's not going anywhere for a long, long time.

Other than the Liberals, Sherman's only option is his previous team, the Progressive Conservatives. If he somehow reconnects with the Tories after what they did to him, he'd look weak.

Too weak to be considered a legitimate party leader.

A quick scan of recent headlines...

The End of a Lie - after decades, the Rosenbergs are finally proven without a doubt to be the spies for which they were tried and executed.  "With Morton Sobell's recent admission that both he and his comrade Julius Rosenberg were Soviet spies, 'the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government.'”  Proof that the political left has put its own self-interests ahead of the free world for years.  Just think of what we'll uncover about the Obama administration in a decade or so.

Four Americans Killed After Yacht Captured by Somali Pirates - The American people will want justice, Obama is already writing his apology speech to Somalians.

Iranian Naval Vessels Enter Suez Canal - Israelis now refer to the alliance with the United States as 'the good old days'.  The Suez is vital, and Iran growing more aggressive.  Sooner or later Israel will be forced to take care of business, even at the risk of upsetting a certain unMuslim American president.

Jailed anti-abortion activist’s case reaches Supreme Court - You gotta love Canada.  Abortions for everyone!  If you dare hold the opinion that abortion is murder, we'll just throw you in a jail cell like a common criminal and use the magic of bureaucracy to silence you.  In the Great White North, true freedom of speech is about as rare as finding a Quebecer who doesn't pout.

Dick Booted from Porn Awards - Apparently 'Best girl-on-girl scene' was the only category this year.

Libyan leader Gaddafi defiant on state TV - This year's winner of the Baghdad Bob award goes to...

Russia blames Google for stirring Egypt unrest - What comes up if you Google 'complicit'?

Anderson Cooper: Keeping Them Honest - from Wikipedia: 'Finding it hard to get his foot in the door of on-air reporting, Cooper decided to enlist the help of a friend in making a fake press pass. At the time, Cooper was working as a fact checker for the small news agency Channel One which produces a youth-oriented news program that is broadcast to many junior high and high schools in the United States. Cooper then entered Myanmar on his own with his forged press pass and met with students fighting the Burmese government.'  What comes up if you Google 'hypocrite'?
 

Whenever I speak out against an act of Islamic savagery by pointing out the 'religion of peace' facade, I can rely on at least one response attempting to bring Christianity into the discussion for comparison's sake.

(My Facebook status update from yesterday revealed another one, when I mentioned the horrific attack and gang-rape of a female CBS reporter by a group of Egyptian protesters.)

Examples of historical incidents by Christians are brought up, statistics are spewed all with the intent of showing how Jesus Freaks are no better than Muhammad fanatics.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Bibles are burned every year by Islamic protesters without so much as a mention. When one alleged Christian American pastor announced his intention of burning a Q'aran last year - well within his rights and freedoms as a citizen of a free country - this was used as an example of how Christians are no better than radical Islamists.

This argument is not only tired, but fatally flawed.

It is true that the Christian religion has had moments that no one can be proud of. In no way am I debating that, denying it, or minimizing some of the darker eras of Christianity.

However, the comparison rings hollow when put into historical context. The worst days of the Christian religion are just that: historical. Islam, on the other hand, is experiencing one of its darkest periods right now.

The difference? About 600 years, give or take a century.

True, there is still the odd professed follower of Christ who feels justified in skewing the Word of God for his own purposes, but these incidents are - thankfully - few and far between.

When was the last time you heard of some nutjob bombing an abortion clinic? I can't think of one.

When was the last time you heard of some Islamic nutjob bombing a school or a bus or a synagogue? Last week? Yesterday? This morning?

The difference is civility.

While many practicing Christians have bought into a degree of 'separation of church and state' on most issues, this is not the case for Islam.

In Islam, the church IS the state, and the state IS the church.

I maintain that the chasm between the Muslim and Western worlds is not so much geographical as it is a distance of time and social evolution.

Those who practice fundamental Islam - 'radicals' to the layman - are stuck in a mindset located centuries ago. Because of this, ideas like 'peace' and 'negotiation' are all but useless.

And so is the attempt to equate modern Christianity with 'modern' Islam.

Since 9/11/01, there have been close to 17,000 terrorist attacks committed by Islamic criminals. When modern-day 'radical Christians' come anywhere close to that number, then a valid comparison can be made.

Until then, any attempt of equating the two religions falls flat.

The left-right political chasm has caused many allegations to be thrown.  Name-calling and finger-pointing has been so frequent that it has become the norm, especially when freedom of speech is the issue.

The left accuses Fox News of being blatantly conservative; the right points out the left-leaning CNN spin that regularly sees discussion panels consist of 2 or 3 liberals with the odd (sometimes really odd) right winger thrown into the mix.

Often the 'other side' of an issue is ignored altogether.

Wondering how accurate these optics were, I decided to do a little online experiment using two of my own blog articles.  In the interest of fairness, both were my true opinions on these separate issues: a column proclaiming my support for the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, and an op-ed piece urging the end  of Canada's dangerous multiculturalism policy.

A while back I placed the pro-pot op-ed at the conservative forum freedominion.ca, and just recently started a thread for the anti-multiculturalism piece on the far-left rabble.ca in their 'babble' chat forum.

The results were, unfortunately, as expected.

The thread on Free Dominion saw many responses, mostly against but some in favor of my views.  The point is, the article generated an actual and honest discussion on a topic that one could assume most FD followers would disagree.  Members made their opinions known directly and without slipping into mockery.  I was impressed by the level of respect, especially for an online political forum.

The thread on the left wing Rabble generated a much different reaction:

No discussion, no debate.  Just a claim of a previous 'banning' from the site for reasons unknown. Maybe there was some long-ago article slamming Trudeau, Suzuki, Gore, bilingualism, or some other jewel on the crown of Canadian socialism that 'offended' the site administration and caused the unknown 'banning'.

More likely is there was no previous offending article at all.

The 'reason' really is just window dressing.  Rabble is a microcosm of the overall political left.  Their current preferred method of engaging the right is not to engage at all.  Shut them up, shut them down. 

You've got to give the socialists some credit.  They've realized that their ideology is inherently flawed, yet stubbornly cling to proven failures without any admission that they were wrong. 

They have also come to learn that they cannot subject these failed ideas to debate.  As opposed to conservatives who relish the idea of intelligent discussion, liberals have been reduced to using the weapon of silence.

They know that if the conservative and liberal positions of an issue are presented equally, factually, and fairly, the conservative position will prevail as the logical one.

Instead of presenting the benefits and reasons for their ideas - which have been debunked - they have no resort than to work towards restricting alternate viewpoints. 

Whether it's banning words on CNN or banning conservatives on Rabble, the end result is the same.  The political right is more tolerant, accepting, and willing to engage in an ideological discussion than the political left. 

Conservatives love free speech, liberals run from it.

What was once unthinkable is now happening. 

For decades many Western nations had bought in to the concept of multiculturalism.  The idea that a free and democratic society could survive - flourish, even - by encouraging immigrants to keep their own customs and traditions after arriving was the crown jewel of the progressives. 

Warnings of the inevitable dangers were met with disdain and condemnation.  The 'racist' card beat down those who dared oppose the utopian ideology.



Angela Merkel



The expected damage has now become too much to ignore.  Last year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made international headlines by declaring 'multi culti' as a failure.  The reaction was no surprise, as many shrugged off her words as some sort of World War II leftover.  A television pundit went so far as to blame Germany itself for the failure, as apparently they are "...inherently prejudiced...".



David Cameron



But when British P.M. David Cameron echoed Merkel's claim with a scathing speech he presented earlier this year, it gave credibility to the issue.  More than that, many of us became impressed that our leaders had finally started to admit the truth even at the possible expense of votes in our overly politically-correct world.



Nicolas Sarkozy



Now, suave French president Nicolas Sarkozy (have you seen his wife?) has caught the wave and has spoken the obvious: multiculturalism has failed.

I applaud all three of them for their honesty, not to mention their balls.

Now I come to my own leader, Stephen Harper.  In his five-plus years as Canadian P.M., he has certainly been impressive on some international issues.  He has renewed our alliance and friendship with Israel during a current wave of anti-semitism to the point that many see Canada as a stronger ally to Israel than the U.S.



Multiculturalism has long been one of Canada's sacred cows, along with other doomed-to-fail policies as English-French bilingualism, universal health care, and the perpetual ass-kissing of our minority french.  All should be scrapped, to be honest.



Stephen Harper



If Harper possesses the level of common sense and astuteness I believe he does, then the time for him to announce the last rites of Canadian multiculturalism has arrived.  Since it began, Canada has seen socially-engineered racial segregation develop in its society. 



Urban ethnic ghettos are in every major city.  Ethnic gangs and violent crime rates are skyrocketing.

How can anyone consider it a 'success' when you have thousands and thousands of citizens unable to communicate, due to the encouraging of immigrants not to learn their new countries common language?

Mr. Prime Minister, join your colleagues and announce the end of our dangerous policy of official multiculturalism before it is too late.

Social engineering is alive and well in Alberta, thanks to a recent decision by the stuffed shirts of the Supreme Court of Canada.

A few years back, I wrote an article about self-described Alberta 'francophone' Gilles Caron, and his attempt to fight a $54 traffic ticket because it was not printed in both English and French.  It wasn't the infraction that Caron disputed - in fact, I've never read or heard any denial of his charge of making an illegal left turn.

No, this was the opportunity he was waiting for: Caron yearned to become a crusader for french rights in the overwhelmingly English-speaking province.

He chose to fight the charge all the way to the SCofC, which did the expected and decided the Alberta government was on the hook for legal fees in the area of $120,000.

If Trudeau's ghost was giggling back in 2003 when Caron received the ticket, he must be in all-out hysterics now.

Caron's lawyers, who represent an association of francophone Albertans, argued that Caron was entitled to the funds, since the Alberta government spent lots of bucks to fight him.  Too one-sided, don't you know.

They also tried to compare Alberta's french population with that of English Quebecers.  A failed comparison, as there are many more English-speaking Quebecers than there are predominantly french-speaking Albertans.

Let's put the issue of the ticket aside - just as Gilles Caron has.

This is an attempt to force the french language down the throats of non-french Canadians.  Geographically and culturally, Alberta is about as far removed from Quebec as you can get. 

Caron's intentions - like many of the minority french Canadians - is to use all means possible to entrench their language, and by default their culture - into the lives of the Canadian English.

The tactic is suspiciously similar to that used by other groups such as the followers of Islam and their attempts to install Sharia law on the majority.  Great company to keep, Gilles.

It should be noted that Caron is bilingual, meaning he understands English at least well enough to comprehend a traffic ticket.

Quebec's Bill 101 has been around for some thirty years.  The law, viewed as 'vital' by the french and 'racist' by the non-french, is a basic provincial language law.  It states that everything from public signs and services to the 'language of business' in la belle province be in french.

Of course, there is no such law of prejudice in Alberta.  Perhaps there should be.

If Alberta were to enact it's own version of 101, clearly stating that all government services be in English only, troublemakers like Gilles Caron would have no leg to stand on.

Then he and all french-loving Albertans would face a choice: English or move East.  There are many like-speaking individuals in Quebec and New Brunswick for Mr. Caron to play with.  Of course, he would lose his standing as a 'crusader'.

Since it is unlikely this province will ever see a law similar to Bill 101, Albertans will have to continue to endure the attack on our culture and our language, all in the name of forced bilingualism.

I wonder: could the Notwithstanding Clause be used in this case?