Since Toronto city council declared itself a 'sanctuary city' years ago, promising not to report illegal aliens and to give them full access to social services, we can assume a lot of the people in shelters and public housing are illegal immigrants. Thus this is Toronto's fault (same thing in Montreal).
Let them pay for it. Let them increase local taxes and put their money where their mouths are.
The LIE-beral double standard on everything is so wildly obvious one has to ask why they do not get laughed at more often??
Oh- wait- our LIE-beral friendly media SHIELDS THEM!!!!!!!!!!
Here is an article illustrating what an up hill battle must be fought to restore honest levels of free and open debate and regain control of our education system from the fascists who have taken it over. With some comments of my own in brackets):
OPINION: No compromise in free speech debate
By William McNally. Published: December 10, 2017. Updated: December 10, 2017 2:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ Opinion/ Columnists
Supporters listen as Lindsay Shepherd speaks during a rally in support of freedom of expression at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo on Friday November 24, 2017. Dave Abel/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network Dave Abel, Dave Abel/Toronto SunDave Abel / Dave Abel/Toronto Sun
I’m a prof at Wilfrid Laurier University who supports free speech.
I’m not the only one. I’m part of a group who, in the wake of the Lindsay Shepherd affair, launched a petition calling on Laurier to adopt the “Chicago Statement”— a policy that ensures maximum freedom of expression on campus. In response, the university announced the formation of a task force to recommend a policy on freedom of expression. I decline to serve on that task force because it will fail and its members’ time will be wasted. I view the task force as ill-conceived, or worse, democratic window dressing.
It will fail because one side cannot compromise and the other side will not.
Compromised free speech is simply the negation of the right itself, and so an impossible concession. The other side, social justice advocates, are not interested in free speech as it is conventionally understood. Rather, they are engaged in a revolution to tear-down established hierarchies. This is evident if you have been following the campus free speech debate over the last two years- i.e., Yale, Missouri, Evergreen State, etc.
(As I see it- the debate has been going on for much longer than 2 years! One can trace the free speech debate back to the 1920`s. One has only to listen to the comments of LIE-berals such as Pierre Trudope as he explains that the war against Nazi Germany was “British Imperialism’! Our Pet Pierre is a graduate of the “London School of Economics” -the school was founded by some great British writers and philosophers- George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells were both charter members.)
(The original goal of the school was to alleviate working conditions in what Charles Dickens referred to as “The Dark Satanic Mills” of Victorian England. Sadly, in recent decades, the school has been infiltrated by Communists who view it as a fine platform for training socialist revolutionaries! Many of the teachers at the school spoke strongly in favour of the need for violent revolution during the time Trudope studied there in 1950`s. Our Pet obviously absorbed the lessons and approved of the vile philosophy as he later heaped fawning praise on Chinese dictator Mao for “his genius in rushing 30 million people to the gallows” simply in order to erase possible political opponents! )
(Hard core socialists have long recognized that it is much easier to mold the minds of children than of adults. Our Pet himself ran into this obstacle while trying to organize a Montreal dock workers strike in order to impede the flow of war supplies to Britain in order to hamper the war against Nazis. Our Pet recognized that the dock workers had been persuaded to accept certain values and beliefs in childhood that could not be easily or quickly overcome- therefore socialists recognize the value of catching them young! Catholic Jesuits also follow the same dictum- train them hard when they are young and they will belong to you!)
(Hence the massive gathering of socialist minded persons in our teacher unions! These socialists have become a self perpetuating force- teachers do not enjoy having their values exposed false by a well read high school student- such teachers enjoy a lively class debate- THAT THEY CAN ALWAYS WIN! Failure of socialist argument is NOT an option! A high schoo. Student is vulnerable to retaliation as the student needs a good teacher recommendation to get into university- thus- holding strong anti socialist values can hamper your future career! In addition, the university student who presents strongly anti socialist views in class can look forward to a compromised education- marked down for “incorrect” thinking! Professors EXPECT that the student will examine all the facts and then conclude the professor was right- OR ELSE!)
American social scientist Jonathan Haidt concludes that a major change has occurred. Many universities no longer view the pursuit of truth as their primary goal; instead, the social justice goal of protecting victim groups has become the priority. He argues that the two goals are incompatible. There is no compromise: Universities must choose one or the other.
(I suggest the devil is in the details- in the 1950`s it took a brave person to speak in favour of black civil rights. In the 1970`s it took courage to speak in favour of the gay community such as when Our Pet told Cdns “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” and I would agree with this! The problem is that radicals are not content with the status quo and want nothing less than total surrender to their values. AS an example, it is rather easy to suggest that China is better off under Communist rule as there is now universal public education, national health care and more equitable food distribution which has alleviated the famines that used to sweep across the country.)
(The question that western radicals do not want to answer is what methods they would impose on us if they gained the whip hand? That they are currently prepared to ruin the careers of people they do not agree with is ominous. The radical position on Muslim terror is also disturbing- after the Boston Marathon bombing- Our idiot \Boy Justin told us it happened because some people feel excluded- and yet the 2 bombers were Chechen Muslim refugees INVITED into United States because Russians had invaded Chechnia! So WHY would 2 men of such background HATE Yankees? Unless they carried a POISONED system of skewed values?)
(Radicals do not want to discuss their hatred for Israel because it invites questions about how to deal with Jews if Muslims do succeed in driving them into the sea? Nor do radicals wish to discuss what methods Hamas, Hezzbollah, Al Quaida and others might use to win their war against Jews! Radicals are content to condemn Israel as “a terrorist state” and let others worry about the victims of a Jewish genocide orchestrated by Muslims!)
(There are those who will suggest that Israel has nothing to do with gay rights- and such a view is wrong! The radical groups are working in a coalition- they ARE stronger in a group with each cause supporting the other against the despised main stream values! Queers Against Israeli Apartheid are friendly with Black Lives Matter. \they do not agree on all things- but they do agree that main stream society is their MUTUAL ENEMY!)
The senior university leadership has clearly indicated their allegiance. When announcing the formation of the task force, the WLU president purposely tempered her support by warning that commitments to free speech must be balanced against “our institutional values of diversity and inclusion.”
(In other words the WLU president reserves TO HERSELF the right to decide what social standards will prevail in HER school!)
Notwithstanding this institutional bias, the premise of the task force is flawed. You cannot combine free speech and social justice advocates on a task force and expect a compromise. As Mark Steyn likes to say, if you combine ice cream and feces, the mixture is apt to taste more like the latter than the former.
And to be clear, the free speech position is already a compromise. The Chicago Statement prohibits speech that “violates the law, is threatening, harassing, or defamatory, or invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests” and acknowledges that the university may regulate speech so that it is not disruptive. Any further qualification just restricts what can be said.
(Public opinion is generally sympathetic to the plight of black people but public opinion also dictates that black people are too often unemployed due to lack of education or to holding a crap attitude! Our LIE-beral govt accuses us ALL of being systemic racists and yet most Cdns sneer at the LIE-beral standard of judgement! LIE-berals label anybody that disagrees with them as an Islamophobe and yet the majority of Cdns are unhappy with LIE-berals sucking up to Muslims! LIE-berals keep telling us that ordinary Cdns are generally WRONG in most things but Cdns look at LIE-beral policy and are becoming convinced they are being put upon and mis-judged by a cabal of radical, anti social misfits!)
The social justice perspective will not compromise because it isn’t interested in free speech as a means of discovering truth. This is clear from the public statements of the justice advocates. In the leaked Shepherd audio, her professor is heard to say that some ideas are “not up for debate” and the neutral airing of both sides of an argument “is kind of the problem.” The Rainbow Centre at Laurier went straight to ad hominems and accused free speech advocates of being transphobic. A Laurier sociologist wrote that he wants to know who is abusing free speech — as if it is a tool of the oppressor.
(Yeah- its DEFINITELY the problem when LIE-berals want to haul us into their Human Rights Kangaroo courts and punish us for disagreeing with them!)
When it comes to the task force on free expression, does my university president truly believe a compromise will be reached if both perspectives are allowed equal representation? I think she knows better.
She need only look to the example of UBC. Faculty there spent the fall crafting a statement on free expression. The last sentence is key: “Freedom of expression can only thrive constructively when accompanied by other rights, including the equality rights of equity, diversity, and inclusion.”
(IN other words- radicals from various `communities` such as Black Lives Matter, Idle No More and the World Wide Caliphate demand the right to shut down ANY speaker they disagree with- if they do not feel warm and cozy and INCLUDED by the speaker! This is dictatorship- by people too lazy to bother organizing a third world style coup!)
My university top brass knows that this task force is doomed to fail. That is, they know it won’t lead to any changes in the status quo. I suppose that’s their hope; it’s certainly the hope of many of my colleagues who feel censorship is a noble principle.
(This IS the LIE-beral way- if you cannot shout it down or jail it- then just IGNORE it and pretend there is no problem! LIE-beral `sunny ways` will prevail until the next election- with LIE-berals praying fervently that we have SHORT memories!)
If real change is to come to my campus, it will likely have to rely on students to push the issue — students who are willing to follow the example of Lindsay Shepherd.
(That IS the great terror that keeps LIE-berals awake at night! That the kids- the ones being propagandized, loaded up with debt and kept on the fringes of th working world while civil service Hogs grab up ALL the gravy- might just wake up and sweep the Hogs away! LIE-berals fear the prospect of a revolution- NOT of their making!)
