Sailing the oily seas of everyone’s wars on the West

oil tankers


Dear Diary:

We are often critical of mainstream media, but today we begin with a chapeau for Ryan Jespersen of Edmonton’s AM 630 CHED radio for his interview with the Prime Minister last week.

Following a listener’s puff ball question about whether or not the anointed one uses French’s ketchup (Sophie apparently prefers something exotic and organic) and an excruciating dodge to a query as to why it’s OK for eastern Canada to import oil from disgraceful dictatorships but not from Alberta, Jespersen asked, at the 4:40 mark  about the ban on northwest coast tanker traffic. Apparently, the answer is not only that the region is environmentally sensitive, it is that 20,000 British Columbians earn their living in that region in the fishing and tourism industries.

But then Jespersen asks about why, if that is so, there is also not a ban on east coast tanker traffic and the answer is gobbledigook. Which got us thinking: do people not fish or work in the tourism industries on Canada’s east coast? Are the pristine beaches of PEI, the beluga habitats of the St. Lawrence, the world-renowned tidal waters of the Bay of Fundy and the fjords of Newfoundland not “environmentally sensitive?”

Well, apparently there are no fishers or tour guides or sensitive areas anywhere there or, if there are, it is certainly not a matter of concern for anyone in high office in Ottawa these days as the government’s own statistics  show there is 16 times more tanker traffic -3,890 vs 246vessels – in Canada’s Atlantic waters than there are plying our Pacific waters. Further, while 2.2 million tonnes of oil are annually shipped out of Vancouver, 12 times as much oil and petroleum products move through Quebec’s ports alone.

The amount of oil moving in and out of ports in the Atlantic provinces is 82 million tonnes, roughly 40 times more than the entire B.C. volume.

So, we ask again on behalf of Mr. Jespersen: if tourism and fishing and environmental sensitive are reasons for no tankers on the west coast, why aren’t those same reasons applied to the east coast? Oh, never mind – we know the answer and so do you.

Say a prayer for British author Ian McEwan from whom apologies are being demanded for his “hurtful” and dangerous assertion that “call me old fashioned but I tend to think of people with penises as men.”

This shocking comment followed his lecture to the Royal Institution on the “nature of the self” where he expressed concern for the bothersome levels of political correctness and “strange sense of victimhood” sweeping university campuses.

“Such self-authorship takes us to the heart of the identity politics currently animating and troubling American campuses and some in Britain too,” he said. “The self, like a consumer desirable, may be plucked from the shelves of a personal identity supermarket, a ready to wear little black number.

 “For example some men in full possession of a penis are now identifying as women and demanding entry to women-only colleges and the right to change in women’s dressing rooms . . . Others, outwardly capable both mentally and physically identify as disabled, and there has been a recent celebrated case of a white woman identifying as black.”

Pretty dangerous stuff, wot?

Speaking of penises, if you have access to one, you’d best keep it enthusiastic. Indeed, the details of a research paper reported many weeks ago have been confirmed and we can, dear diary, state with confidence that the more sexually active a man is, the lower his risk of developing prostate cancer – the most common cancer among men.

And if you want to know how busy you need to be, the bar has been confirmed at 21 ejaculations monthly. Cowboy up.

It turns out a Belgian journalist (another rare chapeau) of Moroccan origin did a thorough report on how the district of Molenbeek had become a Jihadi hotbed years ago and she was, predictably, dismissed as suffering from a psychological pathology known as Islamophobia.

Her book Undercover in Little Morocco, was published in 2006 and was completely ignored.

 “Everyone said I was exaggerating. I was accused of being Islamophobic, racist. Some people said I had psychological problems and that I was a Muslim traumatised by Islam.”

And now, people are dead. It is worth wondering just who is suffering from a pathology.


We are all aware by now of the attempt by police in Cologne to coverup the wave of sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve and many will be aware of the efforts by Swedish police (Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe) to do the same regarding sexual assaults at a music festival.

None of this appeared to be of consequence to Canada’s Louise Arbour, a woman with a distinguished legal career and a leader in having rape recognized as an instrument of war, when she participated in Friday’s Munk debate regarding the global refugee crisis. There, she and teammate Simon Schama were soundly defeated by Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage who managed to turn 22% of the crowd’s votes in their favour. The full debate can be viewed via a link on Steyn’s website and is recommended viewing for those inclined.

Arbour maintained that refugees and migrants will eventually adapt to Canada but also noted that they will, in turn, change us and that’s OK.
While expressing some bitterness at how religion had suppressed women (she’s from Quebec), Arbour did not seem worried at all that those changes go a little beyond the opportunity to enjoy a nice curry or pad thai. Here are some recent examples of – and remember this is pretty early stages – the way societies are being changed in Europe:

Sylvi Listhaug
Sylvi Listhaug

The good news is not just the victory by Farage and Steyn, it’s that Norway is declaring it’s not all that cool with being changed into a medieval caliphate and, having closed their border with Russia to stem the tide of migrants (Finland has done the same) using the Arctic route, is determined not to wind up “like Sweden.”

Integration Minister Sylvi Listhaug announced a series of asylum and immigration reforms because :

“We have foreign fighters who have left Norway and [we have] radical environments. We should not stick our heads in the sand and say that everything is good here. But fortunately we are a long way from the conditions we see in some other countries, for example Sweden,” she told NTB.

This, following Denmark’s action in January, hints at some revival of European culture’s will to live.


Bookmark and Share
Bill Elder

Re” The Munk debate ( Farage/Steyn vs Arbour/buddywazzizname )

I have watched this debate on unrestrained “refugee” immigration and came to the conclusion that this is the first time in Canadian history when a growing problematic federal immigration policy has been openly, honestly (at least form one side) discussed in the public arena.

I came away from that debate with the new found conviction that immigration reform is the most pressing public issue we face as a nation and culture today. The reason I shifted my political priorities was the revelations concerning the UN definition of refugee and the talking disingenuous talking points regurgitated by Louise Arbour in a scolding snide innuendo manner – she rejected/deflected facts and her whole argument was an appeal to emotion/guilt.

The takeaway facts from this debate are these: A) we are being lied to by the highest levels of government about the “need” and nature of the redefined “refugee” status immigration. B) Senior civil servants directly involved in the project/system say it will be socially disastrous and the numbers of immigrants are non sustainable. C) Targeting 3rd world immigrants is a costly policy which will never pay benefits in productivity. D) Europe is a glimpse of what occurs when the high-risk immigrant demographic reaches 10% or more of the population. E) Accepting the proposed number of ME immigrants will change Canada forever through an unwanted cultural shift.

To me this issue outweighs the environment, climate and French’s Ketchup politics – this is about the fundament change of our nation – not for the better.


I agree with you Bill. It is a rather sad, and ironic, state of affairs when we live in a society so insulated from genuine suffering that we are unable to recognize a legitimate refugee from an economic migrant. I’m afraid that first wall of defence has crumbled – it is too late now to have a discussion about the definition of “refugee”. That ship has sailed (or should I say “that chartered plane has left the airport”?).

The most urgent task now is to make sure our new neighbours buy in to the Canadian culture. So long as everyone is cool with “peace, order, and good government”, and other Canadian virtues we’ll be fine. But – and I know it is dangerous to go there – that incident with Zunera Ishaq insisting upon her right to wear a niqab to her citizenship ceremony ought to be of concern to those who cherish our culture. Not because of what she wanted to wear on her head (I could almost care less), but because she clearly didn’t understand that Canadians generally don’t throw a hissy fit about their individual rights when participating in a group activity. The Canadian response, lets say upon being invited to a Synagogue for some reason, would be “Oh, its customary for men to wear a yarmulke in your church? OK. Can I borrow one?” … or if invited to a mosque: “Oh, you guys take your shoes off? OK”. The un-Canadian (more typically American) response would be: “Well, YOU might wear a yarmulke, or YOU might take off your shoes, but I don’t so get used to it.”. That latter response was closer to Zunera’s attitude and was a symptom to me at least that she did not fully understand (or perhaps even actively rejects) the Canadian way.

Being a Canadian is surely more that being issued the proper documents. Or, at least it ought to be. The task now is to make sure new Canadians are embraced and welcomed into our culture – regardless of their point of origin – and become fully functional and contributing members. No doubt we have already granted citizenship to people who don’t understand, or possibly even reject, our ways. A certain amount of that is probably unavoidable. But if done in very small numbers, and over a long period of time, we can absorb that. On the other hand if, as in Europe today, the doors are thrown wide open to uncounted masses in a short period of time, then Canada as we know it will cease to exist.

Its time for a serious and informed discussion about culture and values. Not just “because its 2015” crap, and a waltz through a [your gender here] parade. A serious, informed, discussion that includes the type of perspectives and data presented by Steyn and Farage.


And regarding Blair’s remarks regarding tankers etc … honestly its enough to make a grown man cry. I think the crowd in power today would be happiest if everything West of the Ontario border was just turned into a national park.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *