Open Prison Canada

Once again, the members of Hamilton City Council demonstrate their lofty devotion to principle, and their statesmanlike courage, by boldly supporting Matthew Green's motion to condemn a form of mental illness, namely "Islamaphobia."

Here is the report I got from Hamilton's CATCH newsletter,

Islamophobia

A motion by Green to recognize January 29 as the Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia and to ask the province and federal government to do the same was approved unanimously. It also reaffirms council’s “strong opposition to Islamophobia, like all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry."
At City Council, January 24 Minutes p9-10 (16-0)
For: Collins, Conley, Eisenberger, Farr, Ferguson, Green, Jackson, A Johnson, B Johnson, Merulla, Partridge, Pasuta, Pearson, Skelly, Vanderbeek, Whitehead
Against: none

Right off the bat, the faliliar rat smell ought to be tickling your nose. Why single out one out of a long list of phobias for condemnation? Is it out of concern for the sufferers of Islamaphobia?

Or might it be simple pandering to certain constituents with voting rights?

The answer is too obvious to articulate.

The motion goes further, as it reaffirms council's, "“strong opposition to Islamophobia, like all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry."

In the old days, it used to be safe for politicians to "affirm" their strong support of mom's apple pie. Today you would be probably be called a racist for making such a declaration. These days, political fashions change faster than the climate.

Therefore, this "reaffirmation" of the condemnation of one type of mental disability is cleverly bundled in with "all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry," as a flip-side-of-the-coin ruse.

Gee wiz. Who wouldn't be opposed to, "all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry," in this day and age? (Other than your humble author.)

I would like to offer an example. I do so with great reluctance. I genuinely fear repercussions from people who wield political power. It's not that I am brave. It's probably because I am dumbly incognizant of possible repercussions, but here goes,

I am an atheist. Without tangible evidence, I refuse to accept the claim that the universe was created by some all-poweful cosmic being. As Ayn Rand said, "the universe is not a haunted house."

Now, as much as I am familiar with both Islam and Christianity, both creeds subscribe to the belief in a supreme cosmic being, who's behavioural edicts are mysteroiusly passed down to certain chosen humans. I think the idea is nonsense. I would go further, and state my opinion that people who believe in such nonsense are generally simple in the head.

I could be dead wrong. After all, I have been wrong about one or two things in the past.

Maybe these primitive superstitions will prove to be as incontestible as Man Made Global Warming. But I doubt it.

The question then becomes, does my opinion that Islam is no different from any other religious superstition turn me into an "Islamaphobe?"

My general interpretation of Hamilton City Council's condemnation of "Islamaphobia," suggests to me that I ought not express my thoughts on this subject.

Non-compliance would constitute a form of blasphemy. It's not an irrational fear of Islam that is being targeted by Hamilton's politicians. It is any opinion that is less than laudatory of Islam (for some reason, as distinct from Christianity, in which case, anything goes.)

And I will go one step further in my blasphemous ways... and I hope at the very least that this is open to debate,

Seems to me that those parts of the world where Christianity has been dominant have been the most successful in terms of acheiving the highest standards of living ever known on this planet. Nor has it escaped my attention that the Christian world is the one into which so many of those dominated by other religions and creeds, is the one that so many people are trying to get into. (Which of course begs the question: do they wish to turn their new countries into their old countries? Is that a question I am allowed to ask? Or does that mke me a "phobe?")

Which brings me to the other item of vilification to draw the wrath of Hamilton's saintly politicians, "xenophobia."

Xenophobia – fear of foreigners

I don't think Xenophobia is necessarily an irrational fear. History is full of people for whom xenophobia was not irrational at all. Just ask the Incas or the Aztecs.

Sometimes foreign invasions, whether armed, or migratory, can have devastating consequences to the host populations. Therefore, I don't think xenophobia ought to be summarily dismissed as a form of mental illness, nor condemned as a politically, and legally sanctionable point of view.

What was Missing?

Anyone who has been paying attention over the last 50 years is aware of, or should be, once it has been pointed out to them, is the demonization of white people. Despite the courageous virtue signals from the members of Hamilton's City Council, and despite overwhelming evidence of hatred and demonization of white people (see video clips below) ....

Not one. NOT ONE of Hamilton's esteemed politicians even thought about, much less "strongly opposed," .........

Blancophobia – fear of white people or Caucasians

Can you not see it?

We are being told that racism is rampant in our society, yet the evidense is so sparse that the government has hired a Nigerian immigrant, at taxpayer's expense, to invite every member of a visible minority who ever got a crooked look from a Service Canada employee, or had someone to tell them to get off of his lawn, to come into his office and document the event, so that some left-wing "professor" from McMaster can compile and "analyse" these episodes of "racism."

All of this while Oprah Winfrey boldly announces that white people need to die, and Malema admits that he is not calling for the slaughter of white people in South Africa, "for now."

Here is a question I would ask the members of Hamilton's City Council,

If it were a tossup between a black guy being questioned by the police, or doubted by Service Canada, or had trouble flagging a taxi, or.... the appeals by white South African refugees looking for political assylum, in the event that warnings of a pending white genocide in that country turn out not to be exagerated, which one would you prioritise?

The whites?

Anyone who has read this far has proven that they are interested enough in the subject to have given it serious thought.

Therefore, when it comes to the expected response from politicians we all know exactly the political response to expect.