New Updates

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

*ANC leader demands white
girlfriend<http://hardons-blog.blogspot.ca/2012/07/anc-leader-demands-white-girlfriend.html>
*
*LEFTIST ASSWIPES, WOULD YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THIS AWAY?? *
*
*
<http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/ancyl-lamola-1.1296026!/image/641010240.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_501/641010240.jpg>
*President Ronald Lamola. He says that "Land Reform" will be completed when
ANC leaders have "white girlfriends."*
*
*
Ronald Lamola is the current president of the ANC Youth League. In this
video you see him calling for “white girlfriends” for ANC members. He then
threatens white people with Zimbabwe style violence unless whites
“voluntarily” give up land and mineral resources.

Resources that have already been seized by the ANC have been laid to ruin.
The most valuable gold mine in the world has been so mismanaged by the ANC
that it can no longer pay workers and the elevators have been stripped for
scrap metal.

*Fun fact:* The only ANC leader who is white is the Deputy Minister of
Science and Technology.

HAPPY DOMINION DAY!

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 01 July 2012 18:09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlp259.net/zlKA82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAPPY DOMINION DAY!

Forgive me for bringing up this topic on the eve of our national
holiday, the name ofwhich was fraught with controversy. The request
came from Min. Jason Kenney to participate in a poll on that
controversy. How many Canadiansare even aware that this day was
brought into being surreptishlyi.e. it was slipped through on a
“slow” day on Parliament Hill when only 13 MPswere in the House.
Read about this disgraceful act in the Citizen article, September 1,
2006.

Min.Jason Kenney sent out therequestbelowto participate in a poll
(I’ve captured the latest result) for you.

TheCitizen article explains how this was just one more step in
destroying theidentity of English-speaking Canadians. The
French-speakers had theiridentity defined very well – they were all
about preserving the French languageand culture. What holds
English-Canada together? I quote from thearticle, “Admittedly,
replacing "Dominion"with "Canada" might seem a minor matter, nothing
worth serious concern. And thatmight have been true, if it had been an
isolated case. But the holiday name change wasonly one item in a long
project of cultural engineering on the part of Canada'sprogressivist
elites to replace those symbols that provided English-speakingCanada
with its always-tenuous sense of collective identity.”

Themost revealing paragraph is:

Like many ofTrudeau's ideas, the theory failed in practice. Senator
Molson was quite rightduring the name-change debate in noting that the
federal government always wantsto promote national unity, but
continually adopts "measures whichdivide us." To be sure, thanks to
endless promotion and spendthriftuse of taxpayers' money, "Canada Day"
has laid a claim on the Canadianconsciousness, at least outside
Quebec. But most francophone Quebecers stillpre fer to
celebrateSt-Jean-Baptiste Day as their national holiday. More
pointedly, the dropping of "dominion," like theimposition of the
Charter, has done little to persuade most francophone Quebecers to
abandon their longing for a French nation-state in NorthAmerica.

Nowdo we understand why English-speaking Canadians are so divided on
so manyissues? We haven’t got the cohesiveness of French-speaking
Quebecers whohave been so emboldened by our inability to fight back
that an NDP MP in Quebecis demanding that St. Jean Baptist day become
a national holiday. That will be the topic of my next message.

Kim

Messagefrom Min. Jason Kenney:

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: June29, 2012 4:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: CBC poll onDominion Day

Friends,

I thought youmight be interested in this article and poll about the
Liberal parliamentary shenanigans that changed the traditional name
for July 1st, Dominion Day, to Canada Day.

Apparently evenCBC’s readers are open to Dominion Day! Their poll
currently has Dominion Day at42%, Canada Day at 47%. Vote now!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/06/post-8.html
(
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/06/post-8.html
)

Sincerely,

Hon. Jason Kenney, PC, MP
CalgarySoutheast
www.JasonKenney.ca ( http://www.jasonkenney.ca/ )

7

At5:20 pm on Friday, June 29th, the result of the above poll:

Thank you for voting!

Canada Day, of course! 41.25%
Dominion Day, naturally! 49.2%
Moving Day! 1.07%
Memorial Day! 1.95%
I just stick with "Happy July 1st!" It's easier that way. 1.02%

LATE ADDITION: Confederation Day! 2.31%
Other: 3.24%

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/06/post-8.html
(
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/06/post-8.html
)

Canada Day vs. Dominion Day - What do you call the July 1 holiday?

byKady O'MalleyPosted: June 29, 2012 11:20 AMLast Updated: June 29,
2012

As we head into the long weekend, consider, if you will, the
quintessentially Canadianconundrum that is the July 1st national
holiday.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, it shares a date with Memorial Day,
which was established long before the province joined Confederation,
and honours those lost on what Rick Mercer sums up as "the bloodiest
day in Newfoundland history": July 1, 1916, when the Newfoundland
Regiment "was wiped out on the battlefield of Beaumont-Hamel France
during theBattle of the Somme."

In Quebec, it's Moving Day for the tens of thousands of renters whose
leases expire on July 1.
Meanwhile, the rest of thecountry celebrates Canada Day ... unless,
that is, one happens to be among the small but feisty minority that
insists on calling it Dominion Day, in open andwilful defiance of
C-201, the private members' bill that officially changed thename from
the latter to the former, which was passed by the House of
Commonsunder decidedly murky procedural circumstances thirty years ago
thismonth.

From the Ottawa Citizen:

At 4o'clock on Friday, July 9, 1982, the House of Commons was almost
empty. The 13 parliamentarians taking up space in the 282-seat chamber
were, by most accounts,half asleep as they began Private Members'
Hour. But then one of the more wakeful Liberals noticed the Tory MPs
were slow to arrive in the chamber.Someone -- exactly who has never
been firmly identified -- remembered Bill C-201, a private member's
bill from Hal Herbert, the Liberal MP from Vaudreuil,that had been
gathering dust ever since it had received first reading in May of
1980. "An Act to Amend the Holidays Act" proposed to change the name
of the July 1 national holiday from "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day."
[...]
The whole process took five minutes. The MPs celebrated by declaring
an early end to session at 4:05 p.m. "It is only appropriate that, in
celebrating our new holiday called Canada Day, we should at least take
a holiday of 55 minutes this afternoon," said New Democrat MarkRose.

The controversy continued as the bill made its way through the Upper
House.

Courtesy of the CBC archives, here's a radio report from October 16,
1982 that includes a quote from retired Senator Eugene Forsey, who
fought a valiant, but ultimately unsuccessful battle topreserve the
unique Canadianism that was"dominion":

BY THE OTTAWA CITIZEN, SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=849548fc-39c5-4714-964f-089d6866cff4
(
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=849548fc-39c5-4714-964f-089d6866cff4
)

The illegal elimination of 'DominionDay'

A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments,
decorates the tombsof its illustrious dead, repairs great public
structures, and fosters national pride and love of country, by
perpetual reference to the sacrifices and gloriesof the past. -
Joseph Howe, Father of Confederation.

A quarter-century ago, 13 members of Parliament hastily -- some say
indecently --renamed the country's national birthday in a swift bit of
legislativesleight-of-hand.

At 4 o'clock on Friday, July 9,1982, the House of Commons was almost
empty. The 13 parliamentarians taking upspace in the 282-seat chamber
were, by most accounts, half asleep as they began Private Members'
Hour. But then one of the more wakeful Liberals noticed theTory MPs
were slow to arrive in the chamber. Someone -- exactly who has
neverbeen firmly identified -- remembered Bill C-201, a private
member's bill from Hal Herbert, the Liberal MP from Vaudreuil, that
had been gathering dust eversince it had received first reading in May
of 1980. "An Act to Amend the Holidays Act" proposed to change the
name of the July 1 national holiday from"Dominion Day" to "Canada
Day."

This wasn't the first time the change hadbeen attempted. Between 1946
and 1982, there were some 30 attempts to push such revisionist
legislation through the House of Commons. But there was always enough
opposition to hold the post-modern crowd at bay. On this July
afternoon,however, MPs seized the opportunity to rewrite history with
all the haste of a shoplifter. Deputy Speaker Lloyd Francis called up
the languishing legislation and, faster than you can say patronage
appointment, sped it through to third reading without much more than a
querulous murmur from the attendantparliamentarians. Tory Senator
Walter Baker barely managed a befuddled query of"What is going on?"
before Francis inquired whether the bill had unanimous consent.
Somehow, according to Hansard, it did, despite Baker's apparent
opposition. He later referred to Canada Day as "sterile, neutral, dull
and somewhat plastic."

The whole process took five minutes. The MPs celebrated by declaring
an early end to session at 4:05 p.m. "It is only appropriate that, in
celebrating our new holiday called Canada Day, we should atleast take
a holiday of 55 minutes this afternoon," said New Democrat MarkRose.

Such insouciance toward a long-held tradition was typical. The bill
should never have been brought to a vote. At least 20 MPs were
required to be inthe House to conduct business. With only 13 members
in the House that afternoon,there was no quorum to pass legislation.

Not that Speaker Jeanne Sauvew as troubled. When the procedural
irregularity was brought to her attention, she said that since no one
called a quorum count, a quorum was deemed to exist, and,ergo, no
procedural rules were violated.

For this reason: For millions of still-living Canadians the loss of
the word "Dominion" was, as Quebec senator Hartland Molson said during
the Senate debate on Bill C-201, "another very small step in the
process, which has continued over the last few years, ofdowngrading
tradition and obscuring our heritage."

He was right."Dominion" was a symbol that once helped provide
English-speaking Canadians with a sense of identity. Symbols are
metaphors of meaning, compact artifacts that encapsulate our
attachments to things beyond ourselves. Symbols-- flags, monuments,
and, yes, public holidays -- resonate with a transcendent
significance. To be stripped of a symbol system is to be told, in
effect, that the traditions and customs that give substance to your
life are without value.

Admittedly, replacing "Dominion" with "Canada" might seem a minor
matter, nothing worth serious concern. And that might have been true,
if it had been an isolated case. But the holiday name change was only
one item in along project of cultural engineering on the part of
Canada's progressivist elites to replace those symbols that provided
English-speaking Canada with itsalways-tenuous sense of collective
identity.

What, exactly, was so precious about "Dominion?"

A New Brunswicker, Sir Leonard Tilley, came up with the word as a way
to encapsulate the aspirations of the Confederation generation.

Tilley was one of the delegates from the provinces of Canada, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick who attended a conference in London in
December of 1866 to discuss Confederation. The Fathers of
Confederation initially thought to give the new nation the official
name of Kingdom of Canada. But some fretted that our republican
neighbours might not think kindly about having a kingdom ontheir
northern border. One morning, Tilley was perusing the Bible and came
across the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm: "He shall have dominion
also from seato sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth."
The concept appealed to his hopes that the country he and the others
were creating might stretch acrossthe northern half of the North
American continent from sea to sea to sea.

The other delegates agreed with Tilley. The Canadians convinced the
colonial secretary, Lord Carnarvon, who, in turn, persuaded Queen
Victoria of the virtues of "Dominion." And so the British North
America Act of 1867 sets out how "the provinces of Canada, Nova
Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the
Name of Canada."

Years later, Canada's self-anointed elites objected that the word was
too British and betrayed a colonial mentality. As usual, they were
rewriting history in pursuit of ideological ends. There is nothing
"British" about the word, especially when you consider that its
etymological roots can be traced to ancient Hebrew words that mean "to
let rule." Nor does "dominion" reflect a subtle anglophone attitude
toward Quebec, as more conspiracy-minded francophones claimed.

From Confederation through to the end of the Second World War,
English-speaking Canadians, regardless of their ethnic background,
marked July 1 as Dominion Day.It's doubtful any of the Ukrainian
celebrants, much less the Irish or Scots,thought they were being
"British." As law professor Robert Martin wrote, "the phrase 'Dominion
status' was a constitutional term of art used to signify an
independent, self-governing Commonwealth state."
For the longest time,"dominion" was embedded in the country's culture
and institutions -- from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics (now
boringly known as Statistics Canada) and the Dominion Land Survey to
the Dominion Observatory. The federal government was called the
"Dominion" government to distinguish it from provincial
governments.When the prime minister and premiers met, they attended
dominion-provincial conferences.
The word was equally common in the private sphere. Dozens ofcompanies
and organizations included it in their titles -- from the Dominion
Football Association and the Dominion Exhibition of 1910 to Dominion
Bridge and the Dominion Construction Company. Even today, there's
still the occasional usage -- the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Dominion
of Canada Rifle Association and the Dominion Hotel in Victoria, for
example.

But in the late 1940s, the"national" government started to eliminate
"dominion" from institutional titles and official documents. Behind
this retreat was a concern to ease tensions thathad grown between
Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis and prime minister Mackenzie King
during the war years, largely because of the conscription crisis and
Quebec's opposition to the war. When Louis St. Laurent became prime
minister in 1948, "the tensions were eased by quietly dropping
references to the dominion,viewed by Duplessis as an oppressive word
implying Quebec's subservience to thegovernment in Ottawa," writes
geographer Alan Rayburn in a 1990 Canadian Geographic essay.

But it didn't stop there, of course. By the early1970s, "almost all
references in the media and by the federal government ...were to
Canada Day," Rayburn notes. True, "the word dominion continues to be
part of the official title of this country," he says, because the
British North American Act was incorporated into the Canadian
Constitution in 1982 as theConstitution Act, 1867. But for all intents
and purposes, "dominion" is as dead as a dodo.

The effort was largely for naught. The suppression of "dominion," like
other supposedly troublesome symbols, was done in the name of national
unity, out of a perceived need to avoid alienating francophones.
Pierre Trudeau admitted as much when he wrote: "If French Canadians
abandon their concept of a national state, English Canada must do the
same." In other words, English-speaking Canada was supposed to strip
itself of its self-defining symbols to undermine Quebec's separatist
sentiment.

Like many of Trudeau's ideas, the theory failed in practice. Senator
Molson was quite right during the name-change debate in noting that
the federal government always wants to promote nationalunity, but
continually adopts "measures which divide us." To be sure, thanks to
endless promotion and spendthrift use of taxpayers' money, "Canada
Day" has laid a claim on the Canadian consciousness, at least outside
Quebec. But most francophone Quebecers still prefer to celebrate
St-Jean-Baptiste Day as their national holiday. More pointedly, the
dropping of "dominion," like the imposition of the Charter, has done
little to persuade most francophone Quebecers to abandon their longing
for a French nation-state in North America.

On reflection, this should surprise no one. A nation's
self-understanding depends on the sense of identity shared by
citizens.As scholar Benedict Anderson points out, the citizen of even
the smallest state never knows or meets more than a few fellow
citizens. Yet his consciousnes scontains images -- flags, monuments,
ceremonies, etc. -- that express his communion with those unknown
others. In this sense, says Anderson, a nation is an "imagined
community," an invented response to circumstances of
history,geography, culture and demography. Out of this shared
experience comes a collective self-perception that forms a citizen's
"nation-ness."

This nation-ness is reflected in the national holidays of many
countries. No American alive has any direct experience of 1776
rebellion against the British monarchy.But he refers to July 4 as
Independence Day, not America Day, because that one word,
Independence, encapsulates what it means to be a citizen of the
UnitedStates. For a Frenchman, too, Bastille Day -- not France Day --
recalls the overthrow of the ancient regime during the French
Revolution. In each case, specific words symbolically provide the
essential self-understanding of the nation as whole, and what it means
to be a citizen of that nation.

Dominion Day once carried a similar symbolic significance for millions
of English-speaking Canadians. And to read the Hansarddebate over Bill
C-201 is to encounter not only the weakening of this sense of
identity, but an inchoate confusion and sadness at its loss.

On July 22, two weeks after C-201 zipped through the Commons, Liberal
senator Florence Bird moved second reading of the bill in the Senate.
She defended the legislation,describing Dominion Day as a holdover
from British domination, and claimed that it was chosen "at the
insistence of the British Foreign Office." She suggested that those
who preferred Dominion Day suffered from an "inferiority complex"
about their Canadian identity.

Dominion Day defenders were not going to accept such calumnies.
Alberta senator Ernest Manning found it hard to believethe House of
Commons had dealt with an important symbol of the nation in such a
perfunctory manner. "It is the type of thing that creates serious
divisions and alienation among Canadians," he said, noting that there
was no public demand for the name change.

He corrected Senator Bird's history lesson, pointing out that
"dominion" was "not forced on this country or even suggested to it by
GreatB ritain," but originated with the Fathers of Confederation. He
warned that to proceed with the name change without overwhelming
public support will be perceived by many Canadians "as one more step
by this government in a long series of deliberate steps to chip away
at all those things which pertain to the rich heritage of this
country's past."

Similar warnings were made by others during several days of debate in
late July and early August, but Hansard makes abundantly clear that
while the Trudeau government wanted to avoid responsibility for the
bill, insisting that it was a private member's bill, it was adamant
that the bill be approved regardless of any concerns. To theircredit,
senators, Tory and Liberal, balked at being party to a political
hustle.

Liberal senator George McIlraith, while not disagreeing with the
Canada Day idea, described the name-change legislation as a "horrible
little bill," and urged the government to proceed in a more "dignified
way."

Tory senator Heath Macquarrie questioned the procedural irregularities
and paucity of debate in the House of Commons. Future generations, he
said, would view the "famous five minutes" with contempt.

The senator reminded his colleagues that the word "dominion"was used
in the British North American Act because "the people from Canada
wanted that word, the people from the new Dominion wanted that word."
There was no intention in the word's adoption to assert anglophone
domination of Quebec, he said, noting that George-Etienne Cartier,
Quebec's leading Father of Confederation, endorsed the use of
"dominion."

Francophone senators didn't accept that view, of course. "I don't want
Canada to be dominated, which,to me, is what the word 'dominion'
means," said Liberal senator Louis Robichaud,suggesting that those who
cling to the word "dominion" betray a subservient attitude.

Senator Martial Asselin, a Tory, played the francophone-sensitivity
card. "Because of the deep-rooted differences which still exist
between anglophones and francophones, we should avail ourselves of
every opportunity to demonstrate to French-speaking Canadians that
there is room for them in this country."

And so it went, back and forth. Supporters of the bill insisted the
word "dominion" carried neo-colonial connotations. Opponents insisted
"'dominion' was chosen on a triumphal note to signal the escape from
colonial status," as Senator Molson put it.

In the end, the rhetoric hardly mattered. The Trudeau government, as
senator Royce Frith, the deputy leader of the government,
acknowledged, wanted the name change even though it didn't want to
assume responsibility for turning the bill into government
legislation. Indeed, Senator Frith admitted the government was taking
advantage of a "lucky bounce" in the House of Commons to achieve
something it had wanted for three decades.

At least one Liberal, senator George McIlraith, found such cynicism
disturbing, and a violation of Liberal principles. "I have argued as a
Liberal throughout my life, but the very basis of that liberalism was
the constant answerability of a government to the elected
representatives of the people for their actions."

Perhaps, though, Liberal senator Yvette Rousseau came closest to
articulating the fundamental issue at stake during the final day of
debate. The senators, she said, have to "make a choice between a
mostly historical and rather traditional vision ofCanada and a vision
of the future which reflects a different perception of the reality of
our country."

Every generation seeks in one way or another to define what it means
to be Canadian. French-speaking Canadians, of course, have always
known what they were about: the preservation of French culture in
North America. English-speaking Canadians have always been less
certain. Historically,they have invented various self-definitions: We
were "British" North Americans,loyal to the Crown and inherited
Anglo-Celtic traditions; we thought of ourselves as a rugged northern
people, consciously rejecting the lure of the materialist republic to
the south; more recently, we conceived of ourselves as a mosaic state
of diverse cultures whose ability to live together would inspirethe
world.

Nowadays, few would declare without qualification "who we are" as a
people. A decades-old constitutional crisis, major institutional
reconfigurations such as the Charter of Rights and the free trade
agreements, the near-victory of Quebec separatism in 1995, as well as
globalization, massimmigration, demographic change, and, most
recently, the increasing incoherenceof multicultural values in the Age
of Terror -- all this confirms that Canada is enduring an age of
transition. As a result, traditions, ways of thought, habits of mind,
political practices that once made sense of our lives no longer
attract the same acceptance.

That is certainly true of "English" Canada,understood in a
sociological sense to refer to the non-Quebec, non-aboriginal parts of
Canada. English Canada, composed of people with increasingly diverse
linguistic, ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds, seems
dispossessed of any substantive purpose for itself as a "nation," at
least in the same way that francophone Quebecers still largely regard
themselves as a nation. True, Canada still possesses all the trappings
of a nation-state: national institutions --the constitution,
Parliament, the Supreme Court, the military, etc. -- that possess
legitimacy and authority; borders that are recognized by other states;
a place in the world's councils. Yet, you would be hard pressed to
discern a coherent and convincing metaphor -- a symbol statement, as
it were -- that captures the collective purposes of English Canada.
You might hear mumblings about multiculturalism, the Charter and
universal health care, but even those are offered in a way that makes
English Canada is little more than a lifestyle state, "the greatest
hotel on earth," as writer Yann Martel put it. You arrive with your
cultural baggage, receive government room service when you check in,
and carry on in your suite accordingt o your lifestyle preferences --
religious, linguistic, sexual, etc. -- without regard for the other
guests.

Such concerns about the Canadian identity --or lack thereof -- are not
new. Canadians, as scholar David Taras once said,have a "passion for
identity." A Frenchman, a Briton or an American need not ask about
national identity; such matters were settled long ago. For English
Canada, however, a strong sense of "nation-ness" is hard to assert
with confidence.

The Senate debate over Dominion Day versus Canada Day certainly
reflected this uncertainty. Reading the Hansard account you cannot
help but detect behind the appeals to history and tradition a confused
awareness of a much larger loss; namely, English Canada's lack of a
"national" sensibility on par with that of French Canada's. Even by
1982, English Canada was, to borrow political scientist Philip
Resnick's phrase, "the nation that dare snot speak its name."

At least one senator seemed to understand that the loss of "dominion"
was the death knell of a particular cultural inheritance.

Liberal senator Ann Bell gave the last speech in the debate.The
sadness in her acknowledgement that the "Dominion Day" reflected a
"dying"tradition is almost palpable. She worried that Canada would be
poorer withou tthis tradition, at least spiritually. "We have a
political concept, we have a geographical concept, but I am afraid we
are losing the spiritual concept ofCanada. I believe that 'Dominion'
has a connotation of a firm foundation and an assurance of growth. It
takes us above and beyond rather small partisan political concepts of
the country."

The senator's sentiments had little effect. Partisan requirements
prevailed. Shortly before 10 p.m. on Oct. 25,1982, the Senate gave
third-reading approval to Bill C-201. Two days later, the Canada Day
appellation was proclaimed as the law of the land.

Maybe it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. We may no
longer think of ourselves as a dominion, but the land -- from sea to
sea to sea -- will outlast the ignorance of the politicians and even a
negligent generation of Canadians. So ,we can all celebrate our
dominion's birthday regardless of its official name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________
Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp259.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgjmbgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

<< Start < Prev 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next > End >>

Page 197 of 454

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

Most Read