Diverse Sameness

There is an interview from a Patricia Hajdu, Canada’s “Status of Women Minister” (I didn’t know that was a thing either, but I am so pleased the food from my child’s mouth is taken from me in the form of taxes to pay for such needed roles in government). It took a bit of searching, but there are a few sources. It could all be the exact same article spread over Canadian news sites.

Winnipeg Patricia Hajdu | Medicine Hat Patricia Hajdu | Flamborough Patricia Hajdu

The government wants to hear diverse, and opposing views and opinions.

But Hajdu’s enthusiasm for funding opposing voices only goes so far

That’s right. The government will only accept opposing views that agree with their opinions. Let this sink in. The only opposition our government will listen to is the opposition that agrees with how they feel, what they think and their personal paradigms. We have the right to their opinion, and we can dissent, so long as we get permission and only disagree with things they disagree with.

“The work still has to happen within values and evidence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so what we want at Status of Women is to empower women and to ensure the protection of women’s right to choose,” she said.

“So, it would have to still fall within the realm of feminism.”

I have my grandfathers old criminal code books and the Canadian Charter from when I took law; he was a retired police officer and had them on his shelf. My brother has the Charter as a poster and new criminal law books, from when he did police schooling. In all this, I have never seen “abortion” or “feminism” anywhere in the Charter. There is no clause that states “protection for a woman’s right to choose”. Nor is “empower women” there.

R v. Morgentaler decriminalized abortion in the legal system twenty years after the Charter was written. The Supreme Court also unanimously found the state has an invested interest in protecting the fetus/unborn child. There were two items not decided on in their ruling: whether women have a Charter right to abortion, and whether fetuses/unborn children are included in “everyone” in section 7 and entitled to the same rights. Abortion is a legalistic limbo in Canadian law, not something that is actually protected; it is not even mentioned or defended. Law directly contradicts Hajdu. 

Shouldn’t someone who lives a cushy nice life on my tax dollar, who claims to be speaking for all women, in an official capacity in the government, know the simple basics of Canadian Law? No, your claims are not enshrined in the Charter. Fact: the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you, Patricia! The Supreme Court specifically said no to a Charter defence of abortion, contrary to your claim. Also, the law does not actually cater to feminism. Then I have to ask, what about all the women the “Status of Women Minister” disagrees with? Are they protected as women and allowed to have their own opinions? Or do they only have representation if they fall in line, do what they are told, obey, and disagree on things with which they’re allowed to disagree? We need diverse opinions, so long as the government consents to the opinions. Is the Status of Women Minister working for all Canadian women, or just the ones she likes?

A lot of Canadian women are against abortion. The number of pro baby young girls is growing. None of these voices are accepted by the Canadian government. A woman’s voice is of worth if she toes the line and does what the government says and follows the government policies already laid out. Canadian government feminism defends women saying things they like; they will not represent, aid, protect, or even listen to any women who have their own opinions. What about women who work hard jobs and don’t want to be made to work while raising a family? The glamour jobs of career women exists for almost no actual women. Yet every woman is being ideologically shoehorned into the model of high paying, upper level glass ceiling jobs, which are reality for nearly no one. Every woman is treated as though she is privileged for being able to work and raise a family at the same time. What if a woman want to raise her kids, but can’t – or simply does not want to – do a hard labour or factory job? Because the government bases its policies on feminism, and women fitting in their pre-established  archetypes and delusions of utopia, these women will not be heard.

 Is this pro feminist picture for or against women? If one does not fit into a certain protected group, feminists feel free to personally attack other women. My dresses are mostly recycled saris, nearly everything I have is second hand, my head is not empty but my wall sized bookshelf is full, sometimes three books deep, and we are a working class couple with our first baby coming soon. There is, however, no reason to be frumpy and one can be clean and pleasant, even attractive, while poor. Is the first woman, even if she worked really hard and lives in a tiny apartment, so she could save and afford that Chanel and Prada, to be excluded by the Canadian government for not fitting their stereotypes? Is the second woman actually doing something of value, is she even a good writer, or does she lack the skill and is resentful and bitter, blaming men for her own failings? Will she get government grants and job placements because she fits what the government deems a good feminist woman, worthy of their time and Canadian taxes?
Well behaved men rarely make history. There have been how many billions of people on the earth? How many serfs do we know, merchants and traders, knights and militia, monks and priests? We know of very few people who have lived. How delinquent and selfish do women have to be, that a lack of infamy is a mark of oppression? Why does anyone need to make history? These feminists should go to a graveyard and see all the names of forgotten people, male and female, who also never made history. Their own families don’t even know they are there. The entire idea is a non sequitur. 

The other issue is that there are plenty of women who have made history. Also, without women, many of the men in history would never have made it. Not everyone has a starring role. Every play has support actors, without whom there is no play. Is the role of a wife and mother, sisters and cousins, aunts and in-law, who directly contribute to a man’s success, to be so tossed aside by feminism? If they aren’t the star of the show, their role doesn’t matter? That is true oppression. Expecting every woman to be reckless and overbearing and a star. Most people never achieve this.

What about the women who are famous? There are women who did make history. We have Hatshepsut, a queen who stole her step son’s throne and became a pharaoh. Nefertiti, a legendary beauty and integral to the Amun cult of Akhenaten. Nefertari was Ramesses II’s favourite wife and well known enough that we still know her name. Ankhsenamun was the wife of King Tut, his half sister, and mother to two very human looking embalmed unborn (miscarried) children. These are just women off the top of my head from 5000 years ago.

In the bible we have Sarah and Hagar (there’s the feminists precious infamy), Judith who beheaded a king, Naomi who kept her gentile daughter-in-law in her family and faith, even after her own son’s death. Without the goyim Ruth, there would be no kings David and Solomon, and thus no Christ. What about Magdelene, sisters Mary and Martha, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist; or that the first to see the risen Christ were women and not men. For the atheists: taken as just a story, contemplate the importance of the first people to see God alive after execution, and that they were women. Have these women not also been enshrined in history?

We have an abundance of famous, great Saints who are women. St Clothilde, wife of Clovis, who in converting him changed the course of history for Europe. St Joan d’Arc, ending the Hundred Years’ War. St Teresa of Avila, one of the greatest spiritual writers, and St Hildegard Von Bingen, regarded as a genius. St Helen, mother of Constantine, who found Calvary. St Bernadette, a simple peasant girl from France, loved to this day. St Catharine of Sienna, who told off a Pope, righteously. There are dozens more.

Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Tudor, Queens Elizabeth I and II. Queen Isabel of Spain, who drove out the moorish invasion of hundreds of years. Catherine the Great. Hanna Reitsch who was a female Luftwaffe pilot. Are these not women of history? Then of course, the most beloved, venerated, adored human to have ever existed, Holy Mary, mother of God. In what way have any of these women not made history? They were all either well behaved or fulfilling their duties, which is in fact being well behaved. Even if we have salacious and mostly fictional or out of context stories today, the same happened to famous men. Most were good and duty driven, we only think differently because of legend and fabrications.

Canada’s Carbon Problem

We have a problem in Canada. We have a lot of problems in Canada, to be honest, and one of them is carbon. (Apparently. CBC climate tax Trudeau) When it comes to farming, we simply do not have enough carbon. Farmers spray their fields as the crops cannot get enough from the air. Even homeowners enrich their soil with chemicals – natural through compost and manure or synthetic – because there is not enough. Plants give off oxygen as a process of photosynthesis. They absorb both carbon and oxygen to perform photosynthesis (former) and breakdown sugars for food (latter). Then as stated, give off oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Or more simply:


Canada is not like the United States. We are not populated coast to coast, border to border, with clumps of wilderness speckled throughout. Canada is nearly complete wilderness and mostly unpopulated, with a smattering of civilization seeming to appear randomly through the land. In other words, we have trees and plants. We have a lot of trees. We are mostly trees. And bears and beavers and wolves and moose. Mostly trees and plants though.

Did I mention CO2 is necessary for plant growth? Higher carbon levels means bigger plants and simply more plants. It means more food crops and healthier food crops. So much so, that farmers are artificially adding carbon to their crops. Yet the government wants to tax Canadians for “producing” carbon. Our hydro has been raised so much, it’s $100/month more now than a year ago. Gas is already expensive and highly taxed. Every electronic comes with a “green” tax, as do vehicles. Ethanol has been found (speaking in green here) to be a worse pollutant and worse for the environment, than straight up unleaded. Yet the very vehicles that would be using 91 octane (or higher), which contains zero ethinol, are also the cars slapped with an extra gas guzzler tax. Yet as they don’t use ethanol “enriched” gasoline, the “environmental damage” should be offset.

Then on top of HST, we will be smacked with a carbon tax. Now, could someone explain how plant-dense Canada has any global effect on carbon? We probably have a thousand trees per person, including the Inuit, are functionally carbon neutral at our “worst” (assuming carbon is bad) and we have to pay our government even more money because Chna and India are producing carbon and we, unable to offset it, need to pay our incompetent government to fix the problem? How does making it difficult for families to pay bills or feed their children, change how bad the smog in Bejing is? Or that the Ganges is a greater, actual, environmental and biological hazard than any plant-nourishing carbon will ever be?

Could someone explain how in the Middle Ages olives and grapes were grown in England. Were there too many SUVs? Were they cycling through too many electronics and needed the Kings to get them with a green tax to curb their television and cell phone use? How can we have historical climate shifts without the factors we now say cause global warming? Which was rebranded climate change when the warming never actually happened. After the “…there’s a 75% chance the entire Northern Polar ice cap in some summer months could be completely ice free in the next 5 to 7 years,” never materialized by 2016 (7 years after the video) we had already switched to “climate chaos”. Al Gore claims ice free…. [The quote starts around 2:15.] While this statement is full of wiggle words to avoid actually being responsible for false prophesy, the fact is, it was meant to be a threatening prediction to dictate government policies. Such as taxing populations.

We have record ice growth, winters so cold they have broken all records and found out the polar bear populations is thriving, especially as the statistics used for fear mongering has purposefully excluded large polar bear populations. We also have The Globe and Mail, a Canadian paper, admitting to things such as:

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

Then we have:

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

I’m sorry people, but I’m going to trust the Inuit when it comes to polar bears before anyone else. Show me one scientist who actually lives with polar bears and I’ll give them a hearing. But if the Inuit are saying we have polar bears and every scientist says the opposite, I’m going with the Inuit.  Globe and Mail, polar bears.

We have records of multiple lies and threats that never materialized. And Canadians are going to be paying taxes based on the claims of the very people, and the very “science”, which has repeatedly been falsified. They even need to fudge their own work to create panic where none exists.

The CO2 graph claiming horrific rise in carbon, threatening us all: Can anyone else see where the Y axis begins? It has been a long time since math class, but from what I remember, one should have a zero and a squiggle above it to show that a large part of the chart is cancelled out to show the pertinent information. All we see here though is how drastic the uptick is. The full chart is actually:

Not so impressive anymore. If one maps temperature vs carbon, it gets really interesting:


Oops. Temperature changing before carbon, and temperature averages going down with carbon.

And I’m supposed to pay taxes on this crap?