Monday, January 31, 2005
Woman told: Work as a prostitute or we cancel your unemployment insurance.
2 years ago Germany legalized prostitution. Now a 25 year old IT worker who turned down a job in a brothel will have her unemployment insurance cut. Yesterday's London Telegraph reported that the Berlin woman had worked as a waitress in the past, and had put in her job profile that she'd also be willing to work in a bar, if necessary.
Under Germany's new welfare reforms, anyone under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can have their benefits cut if they refuse to take an available job - including in the sex trade. Job Centers must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse. German unemployment stands at 4.5 million, the highest level since reunification in 1990.
In the name of liberal compassion (welfare) women will now be forced into the sex trade. Already, women who had worked in call centers have been told to take phone-sex jobs and one 23 year old Gotha woman was told she had to go to an interview as a nude model, and then report back to the job center.
Whoever drafted and voted for this legislation should be forced to put their daughters into the sex trade.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
My taxpayer-funded, CBC Newsworld campaign against traditional marriage and the conservative party continued all day today on it's 24 hour news channel. I say 'my,' because the CBC news is an activist, arrogant, bloated, biased, bureaucracy masquerading as a national news network surviving on the taxes extorted from me and other working Canadians. Anyway, it seemed every time I passed through their channel my taxes were being used to tell Canadian families that resistance is futile.
Although the government passed legislation in support of traditional marriage in 1999, they refused to pass a motion in 2003 reinforcing the definition of traditional marriage. The prime minister promised a free vote in Parliament, then tried to weasel out of it by deferring to the Supreme Court. Homosexual marriage is the subject of day, but today as the government caucus met in Fredericton, CBC Newsworld seemed obsessed with an attack on the leader of the opposition.
What raised their ire was CPC leader Stephen Harper's appeal to ethnic communities for support for the traditional definition of marriage. Although ethnic groups traditionally vote liberal, they are also very supportive of traditional values. The conservatives may successfully make inroads among the traditionally liberal ethnic voters. This has obviously alarmed opponents of traditional marriage.
The CBC claims to support diversity, but apparently that's only if those diverse views are non-traditional. CBC's Newsworld anchors repeatedly argued with their interviewees could not restrain themselves from taking sides against conservatives.
C.P.C. MP Belinda Stronach, who opposes her party's support for traditional marriage, was attending the CPC caucus meeting in Victoria. Stronach was available to make her views known throughout most of the day, and my Newsworld happily allowed her the publicity.
In another interview, CBC Newsworld anchor Nancy Wilson repeatedly badgered the CPC Justice Critic, Vic Toews. Wilson interrupted him repeatedly when he attempted to answer her questions. The CBC Newsworld anchor also had to be corrected by Toews at least twice, as she kept incorrectly insisting that the Supreme Court had ruled the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
In the wake of several lower court rulings against the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, all the predictions from the
wrong- left were that the Supreme Court would strike down the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court did not strike down the traditional definition of marriage, but instead passed the buck back to parliament.
Nancy Wilson was not the only CBC staffer who didn't/couldn't read the Supreme Court ruling. Anchor David Grey also shared Wilson’s mistaken belief. Grey interviewed one of the only liberal M.P.'s openly supporting traditional marriage, Pat O’Brien. In 2003 O’Brien served as a member of a House of Commons committee, holding hearings on marriage in 15 cities across Canada. O’Brien was excluded from the liberal caucus meetings today in Fredericton. Throughout the interview David Grey attempted score points off O’Brien, arguing in favor of homosexual marriage with his interviewee.
Odd that the liberals, who claim to welcome diversity, excluded a dissident from their caucus meeting, but conservatives did not.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Nice thing about viral ads is you don't have to worry about prissy censorship by the FCC or CRTC. The best quote on the subject was by a poster named claymore at ad-rag:
"Jurisdictionally-speaking, the FCC isn't even in the picture here. That's like the FAA banning tinfoil underwear for flying slug beasts on Pluto."
Friday, January 07, 2005
· In the 1993 the Liberal Government passed Hate-Crime legislation making acts that were already criminal more criminal if they were perpetrated against
more-than-equal people visibly identifiable groups, (this was later amended to include sexual orientations.)
· Hate crimes were also defined to include the publication of material considered hateful to the
more-than-equal people, uhh, some identifiable groups. Government officials were quick to reassure concerned Canadians that this didn’t include the Bible, which condemns homosexuality as a sin and abomination. It was an amendment that had sexual-orientation added to this bill, it will only take an amendment to make the Bible ILLEGAL. WAKE UP!!!!!!!
· When the courts in
· Then the courts ruled in the Rosenberg case that the Federal Government had to provide spousal benefits for same-sex couples in the civil service. The Liberal government made promises the ruling wouldn’t be used to undermine traditional marriage. (Interestingly, Gay MP and self-confessed but unprosecuted jewel thief Svend Robinson promised the Homosexual press that it would.)
· In 1999 the Liberal Government loudly and with great fanfare led a free vote in the House of Commons reaffirming the traditional definition of Marriage. Yet after the aforementioned court ruling, the SAME LIBERAL GOVERNMENT legislated Homosexual Marriage under the bait-and-switch name “civil union” as a part of Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s retirement legacy. The homosexual press was quick to claim this ruling as one more step in their battle to redefine society. Cabinet officials however, were quick to assure concerned Canadians this was not intended to undermine Traditional Marriage.
· In their December 9th decision on homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that Churches and the clergy had the right to refuse to participate in this bit of social engineering. Relief was the primary response from social conservatives. It should have been outrage that both the courts and our politicians were in fact claiming to allow the churches to act in accordance to their beliefs.
Freedom of religion is one of those basic, inalienable human rights referred to in the American Declaration of Independence. No totalitarian state can survive true freedom of religion, (eg, communist
What frightens me is that most Canadians have accepted it.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
With every step and ruling, our lords and masters, uh- I mean, ‘elected leaders’ assured us that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience would be preserved. They assured us that our churches wouldn’t be coerced into performing homosexual marriage ceremonies against their creeds. And they promised civic officials wouldn’t be forced either. Oh well, at least they have Cotler’s promise. Just like we have the Prime Minister’s pre-election promises for more democratic government, more free votes, and a reigning Liberal government more sensitive to the wishes of the people...
We all know how credible the promises of a Liberal are, don’t we?