Why Canada Sucks, Part 1

I stated in my posts on the Tamils that Canada sucks. There are far too many people out there who don't think this to be true, so I am beginning a series dedicated to the suckitude that is the Great White North.

When one has a subject that is so rich, so long, wide and deep, so huge in scope, such as why Canada sucks, one is faced with an enormous problem; where do I begin?. Canada has so much suckitude in its politics, law, history, culture, geography, weather, attitudes... Where do I begin? How do I attack the subject matter? I think as a series of, "This just pissed me off, so I'm going use that lens to tell you why Canada sucks" essays.

Since I started with the Tamils, I will launch with the notion of equality under the law. Short version, we ain't got it. What we've got is a law for the majority, and a whole 'nother law for the minorities. Oddly, the standard historical relationship is reversed; in Canada, legal-wise, the majority gets the shit end of the stick.

Yesterday I posed a question; if a group of white supremicists tried blockading Yonge St., or blocking traffic for little stroll down the Gardiner, would Premier McSpineless congratulate them on their 'peaceful, legal' protest, or call in the cops? I'm thinking the latter.

OTOH, if an ethnic minority flouts the law, the cops are there to ensure the lawbreakers safety. What is the difference? White supremicists are a dying breed of sad little shits, held in contempt by pretty much everyone who isn't one of them. Oh, and they're white. Tamils, marching under the banned flag, of a banned terrorist organization, which illegally raises money in Tamil communities, aren't, so they get a pass.

It's not just large groups on public display, and the politicians' fear of bad press. The rot goes deeper. So concerned are we that somewhere, some white person is getting an even break that we created a whole paralel, quasi-legal judicial system. Why do I say quasi-legal? Because it isn't investigated by police, prosecuted by the crown, or presided over by actual judges. Everyone in the chain is a political appointee. What are these bodies? The "Human Rights" Commissions.

I addressed the "Human Rights" kangaroo kourts here. For more, and better, go to Ezra Levant, or Mark Steyn. They can give you the view from inside the belly of the beast. A beast that finds conservative white people to prosecute. Don't believe me? Find a case where a leftist, non-white got prosecuted. The closest I can come is the curious case of Sunera Thobani (former head of NAC, UBC women's studies professor), who, in the aftermath of 9-11, went on one of her typical screech fests, that time about what bloodthirsty bastards Americans are.

Someone complained about her speech so she prepared her in depth, highly technical legal defense, "I'm a leftwing, brown woman, you can't prosecute me for a hate crime." I paraphrase. Whatever her defense, the investigation stopped dead. Mark Steyn quoted an Imam, and was persecuted by these clowns, for the Imam's quoted words. Again, Mark Steyn; white, conservative, man, prosecuted for words not his own. Thobani; brown, socialist, woman. Investigated, given a pass on her own far more vicious words.

Even better, the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate. Don't believe me? Google "chrc conviction rate." The only cases where the defendants weren't convicted were, such as with Levant and Steyn, when those cases were dropped. The defendants had too much time, money, too big a soap box, and too big a flashlight. When they shone that flashlight under the rock, the cockroaches scurried back to the shadows.

Even worse, it's not just the quasi-judicial kangaroo kourts; the real law is biased. Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the geniuses in Ottawa changed the rape law so that a woman could not give consent, were she, for example, drunk. Stands to reason, then, that the man could not be required to gain consent were he also drunk, right? Bwahahahahahaha. If a man and a woman, both equally drunk, had what they believed to be consensual sex, under a literal reading of the law, they did not. It was rape. Period. I believe that one got blown up when some POS in the maritimes successfully his used extreme drunkeness as a defense for a violent rape. It's possible the numbnut crowd in Ottawa fixed the law after that. I don't know.

If they did, maybe they fixed the infanticide law, at the same time. Daddy kills baby, it's a crime of murder. Mommy kills baby, the crown can go for infanticide, for a much lower sentence. Same crime, but the woman gets off easier.

Remember Paul Bernardo? Pre-Karla Homolka he was a serial rapist. Enter Karla and he moved on to kidnapping, torture, and murder. He's serving life in a solitary confinement box (fucker got off light). She's walking the streets with a sociology degree paid for by the taxpayer. Was he truly that much more culpable? Was she just a battered woman innocent, dragged down by the devil. Reread the order above. Alone, "just" a rapist. With the woman, kidnapping, rape, murder.

Equality under the law in the demented dominion is a fairy tale. I would not, in this day and age, want to be a straight, white, conservative man in Canada. You belong to no protected group, so you get the full force of the law, while the protected groups get lighter treatment, or an outright pass. Which is one reason why CANADA SUCKS.