Elections Canada’s Disguised Shame

So Elections Canada is boasting a 71 per cent increase in voter turnout at advance polling stations, even though masked clowns, ghosts, scarecrows and mummers (apparently some sort of Newfie costume) are making a mockery of our democratic tradition.

To reiterate what I reported a couple days ago, the Fair Elections Act has made voting extremely easy for the sake of curbing low voter turnout, all at the expense of the process’s integrity.

It’s worth repeating the disillusioned words of my anonymous source (anonymity granted for obvious reasons) from Elections Canada: “[I]n an attempt to make voting easier the whole institution is easier to fraud. An example could be if someone or even a group was persistent in wanting to vote numerous times they can appear at every polling station with stolen ID. With pieces of mail now qualifying as ID it would be simple to gather or steal.”

Now, hypothetically speaking, dumpster divers everywhere can filch two valid pieces of ID (out of dozens of options, such as an empty prescription bottle and a bank statement) from someones trashcan and show up to vote. Especially fervent fraudsters could dress up in an array of costumes with face-coverings and could go door-to-door trick-or-frauding, no one would be the wiser. As I reported in my earlier post, a reporter already proved that a voter doesn’t have to reveal his or her face to vote, a disguised person’s promise will do.

But even the less sophisticated fraudster can get away with democratic murder in plain sight. “[I]f a voter appears with ID that is definitely not their own they simply could make a scene. Unofficial instructions are to diffuse the situation and allow them to vote. Avoid any possible media coverage that will put EC in a bad light,” said the EC employee. No need to trouble yourself with the hassle of dressing up, just act menacing enough without a mask and EC will cower to you.

Evidently, EC’s desperate eagerness for higher voter turnout and good PR has resulted in it throwing all caution and scruples to the wind.

My source got back to me shortly after reading my latest to further clarify a few things on just how rotten the EC has become. He informed me about how employees at the institution scramble to try and keep egg from EC’s face.

“I had seen Ezra’s interesting and comedic report on the reporter voting in a niqab. Of course everyone involved at EC went completely out of their way to accommodate the situation so as not to cause a media event. Funnier that it was [in itself] a media event, although they were unaware at the time.” So apparently employees did find it strange that burly man in a niqab showed up at their office, but they bit their tongues, followed unofficial protocol and welcomed the intruder.

(On a less humorous note, another journalist–this time a woman–voted while niqab-clad and got to skip the pathetic formality of swearing and oath.)

My informant also clarified how the absurdity has reached Kafkaesque proportions: “The mandate of EC is established by the Canada Elections Act and the Fair Elections Act. The act simply determines that identity must be established, the Chief Electoral Officer determines policy on ‘how’ identity can be established.” I wonder if the CEO, Marc Mayrand, is regretting his loose translation of what constitutes IDing someone.

However, regrets or not, Mayrand has an army of ghosts, zombies and werewolves to vanquish on October 19. Over 7,000 Quebecers have pledged to dress up and vote on election day in protest of the recent niqab developments. Maybe their prank will also help draw enough attention from the mainstream media on the sorry ID requirements.

“If [the pledge is] carried through it will cause huge administrative delays if the voter only has a drivers license as ID, as they would need to compete additional paperwork as the photo part of the ID would not be sufficient. But it may also prove a point about lax identification policies.”

Canadians from coast to coast should get in the spirit.

Dress Up and Vote! (or The Canadian Rocky Voting Horror Show)

“Vote! Vote! Vote!” shrieks the CBC at Canada’s youth this election campaign, still haunted by the conservative ghouls’ violations of the last election that resulted in the horrifying budget cuts of the Corpse.

The Mother Corp’s Rick Mercer is leading the social justice warrior crusade in getting Canada’s youth to do a zombie march to voting stations across the country on October 19.

“[O]ne thing we know about non-voters is voting is contagious. If you take 3 or 4 people and they’re non-voters and you put a voter near them, or around them, or someone that talks about voting, the chances of them voting–the non-voters–goes up,” expounded Dr. Frankenstein while on Rosemary Barton’s Power & Politics.

Mercer went on to explain the contagion’s success to a cackling Barton (I’m using some seasonal hyperbole, get over it): “So the idea is if you’re a voter you should talk about it and let people know you’re voting, so if you go to votenation.ca … it allows you to take a picture and imprint it with “I will vote October 19″. Then you can share that on social media. It’s already been a tremendous success with 140,000 Canadians have done it,” Mercer explained, bursting with pride at his mad genius creation.

Mercer doesn’t appear concerned whether the Canadian youth from the ages of 18-24 are informed on any of the issues, just as long as they participate in his slacktivism and turn out to vote this time around (1.8 million youth voters or 60 per cent were no-shows in 2011, this author included).

“Maybe we’re shaming them into voting, I don’t know. But as long as they vote, I don’t care.”

This speaks volumes because Dr. Frankenstein’s own network rejected airing two national leaders’ debates last month, opting instead to air a documentary about exotic pets and rerun Murdoch Mysteries episodes. (You don’t want your minions thinking too much.)

So what was the real reasoning behind the public broadcaster’s defiant refusal to show the debates? The official reason is that the network wouldn’t have had editorial control over the live debate. Why this would be a problem in a debate (where dialogue is supposed to be unpredictable and out of a host’s control) is beyond a sane person rationalizing. What’s obvious to most is the CBC threw a hissy fit, like a child deprived of candy on Halloween, because it lost the right to host the debates this federal election. But I still think there is also some truth to the CBC’s pretentious, official excuse.

The amount of electrocuted and torqued election coverage by the CBC has not gone unnoticed. In my widely-read post from last week, entitled “The CBC’s Insolent Election Bias”, I elucidated on the foggy pro-Trudeau and anti-Harper propaganda the CBC has consistently spun this grueling campaign cycle. Justin Trudeau de facto bribed the CBC with a promise of an extra 150 million dollars annually (despite the CBC failing to recognize its record low viewership and ad revenue) if he becomes PM and the union for many CBC journalists is actively campaigning against the CPC. Thus it makes sense that the CBC wouldn’t want the highly unpredictable and gaffe-prone Trudeau potentially exposed to tough questioning that isn’t coming from Trudeau’s affectionate Mother Corp. Better Mother Corp feed its infected zombies filtered and flattering snippets of Trudeau the dilettante.

But we’ve lost our way in this bizarre freak show. So back to the CBC’s frenzied and zealous crusade to get green, low-information youth out to vote. On The National, the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge hosted a special At Issue panel where the three left wing commentators bemoaned the past low voter turnouts.

Andrew Coyne had a mad solution to top Dr. Frankenstein’s: “[W]e whould look at mandatory voting. Obviously we’re not going to throw people into jail or anything, but kind of as a nudge … it’s just kind of pushes you along and says ‘look, there’s an election on, everybody is voting, you should vote as well.”

No need to try cheap gimmicks in order for the left to get its untapped boon, just make it illegal for low-information voters to sit on their asses come election day.

Mansbridge followed this up by asking Coyne why people shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the web. Never mind the numerous ways online voting could make the process vulnerable to massive voter fraud, Coyne’s only quibble against it was that the “solemnity” of the act of voting in person would be lost. Then Mansbridge pointed out that Coyne online shops, so what’s really the difference between the two acts?

It’s this kind of blind fervour for greater voter turnout that has resulted in Elections Canada identification requirements being relaxed to what, I would hazard to guess, is a lower standard than many African countries. Only a couple of pieces of mail with your name and address are now required.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ve been corresponding with an Elections Canada employee whom I’ve granted anonymity for obvious reasons. Here’s the employee’s stark take on the rotten state of our voting institution:

“My personal feelings are that in an attempt to make voting easier the whole institution is easier to fraud. An example could be if someone or even a group was persistent in wanting to vote numerous times they can appear at every polling station with stolen ID. With pieces of mail now qualifying as ID it would be simple to gather or steal. Another example could be if a voter appears with ID that is definitely not their own they simply could make a scene. Unofficial instructions are to diffuse the situation and allow them to vote. Avoid any possible media coverage that will put EC in a bad light.”

A preview of how ridiculous things have gotten was captured in a recent video stunt by The Rebel Media. One of the media organization’s  male journalists, wearing a full-face-covering niqab, arrived at an EC office to vote and trick-or-treat early. The staff didn’t bat an eye at his arrival and presented the niqab-clad man with the options of revealing his face or swearing an oath that it was indeed him (our damn over-politeness biting us in the ass again). The reporter opted for a pinky promise, and then he was off on his merry way.

However, the real monster mash will take place on October 19. 7,000 Quebecers have made a pledge to show up to vote dressed up in Halloween costumes in protest of the recent niqab developments (perhaps devolution). I’m sure the CBC will be thrilled when Donald Trump, Ahmed Mohamed, Caitlyn Jenner, Darth Vader, Casper the friendly ghost, and the Scream guy show up to vote.

The little smoke-and-mirrors show that was ominously called The Robocall Scandal pales in comparison to the type of fright we might be in store for when we practice our hallowed democratic tradition this October.


Footnote: Please remember these wise words from Mercer: “So for those of you who are feeling worn down by this campaign and want to–to zone out and stay home. I feel your pain. I never thought I’d say this, but I would rather drink paint than hear the following is a paid political announcement. We must remain vigilant. Remember, this is not their election, it is ours. They do not get to choose what this election is about. We do. Just like we get to choose who runs this country. That’s our job–all we have to do is show up and do it.” Vigilant indeed. Also vigilante. I don’t think the argument that many Canadians lost their lives so that we could vote meant tossing away standing on guard to fraud. It sickens me how much we’ve cheapened the vote for the sake of high turnout.

The Canadian Media is Shrouding the Federal Election in Darkness

The Canadian election is merely nine days away, and the campaign has now descended into a phase much like The Dark Ages. During the last two weeks of this eleven-week battle of attrition, the mainstream media’s fickle attention span has somehow remained fixated primarily on the minuscule niqab fray, instead of devoting top coverage to the many real and substantial issues facing our dear nation. It is curious why the mainstream media has suddenly found such concerted concentration on what it deems to be such a minor issue–and it’s worth spending the time unveiling.

Appropriately enough, the niqab fray began to unravel in Quebec, where secularism and self-identity are cherished, and where provincial legislation bans the niqab from the public sector. Right after the French-language leaders’ debate, in which the niqab was briefly touched upon, the Laurentian elites of Toronto belaboured the issue in the decrepit CBC headquarters.

Andrew Coyne, a top National Post editor, was repulsed by the time allotted to the niqab non-issue during the debate: “To take one of these very few opportunities these leaders have and to spend such a proportion of that time to ask this question if whether a few dozen women should have to wear a veil, or not wear a veil in a citizenship ceremony, or whether they should do it in a private room beforehand–it’s ridiculous!”

Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star columnist and familial Quebecer who’s far more familiar with the subject matter, challenged Coyne’s reasoning for his risible indignation: “Actually support for a niqab ban in Canada, according to polls done for the federal government runs over 75 per cent. So it’s not just a Quebec issue. Now, nobody is stopping–”

“It’s not an issue that is germane to this country. It is trivial in the grand scheme of things,” rebutted Coyne.

“It is an issue that is of interest to the voters of this province and to most of the Canadians that have answered that question … An election is about more than whatever is set in the editorial boardroom’s of Toronto as [to] what matters to the country.”

“Of course. But it’s also more than who can pander to the lowest common denominator on these issues. To frame–to frame what? A third of the debate around this is ridiculous.”

“No, five minutes. Maybe the translation took longer. But five minutes out of the entire debate was on the niqab issue. I know it sounded very long, but it was five minutes,” concluded Hebert decisively.

Whatever the exact amount of time given to the niqab issue during that debate of yester-month, it’s undeniable that the exorbitant time and space Coyne and other editors of news organizations have “framed” and devoted to the niqab feud–all in the last fortnight–is truly ridiculous.

Coyne’s National Post, The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star each published over 60 online articles about or referencing the niqab issue in October alone. Both the CBC–never one to miss an opportunity to squander the public’s time and dime–and CTV gave the niqab issue endless coverage.

The general consensus of the microcosmic news boardrooms in Toronto was that Harper was playing despicable dog-whistle politics geared towards appealing to a xenophobic subgroup. There may be some truth to this conjecture, especially since shortly after the niqab fray broke out the Conservatives fanned the flames by reminding voters of their “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” and adding a proposed RCMP tip line for reporting said practices. But the Conservatives actions don’t negate the fact that the media has chosen to obsess over this tempest in a teacup. What’s most intriguing is how diametrically opposed the Canadian press’s editorial stance is to the Canadian zeitgeist.

Earlier this year was the first time the curtains were drawn wide open and the national spotlight first shone on the niqab, when in mid-March Harper declared the niqab a symbol of anti-women culture. I wrote an article on the article of clothing entitled “CBC’s Impudent Prettification of the Niqab”, in which I undressed the CBC and other Canadian media outlets shameless whitewashing of the patriarchal garb. At this time it was discovered by the media, after they’d snapped at Harper’s dog-whistle–or perhaps obeyed Pavlov’s bell–that 67 per cent of Canadians agreed with Harper’s citizenship ceremony ban.

Of course the other reason the niqab issue overshadows all else right now is the new Canadian citizen Zunera Ishaq. The poor martyr or ungrateful miscreant, depending on your point of view, just became a Canadian citizen today. At the beautiful ceremony or the heist of Canadian secular values, Ishaq swore allegiance to the Queen niqab-clad because the Federal Court of Canada struck down the Conservative’s niqab ban last February.

The CBC, obviously in the pro-niqab camp, interviewed Ishaq right after the ceremony.

“For me it is very strange that how can a personal choice matter become for the people to decide … it is a little sad as well as a little disappointing for me as well that this personal choice of mine has nothing to do with anyone and it is a personal matter, which has been taken to this political game, which is not–I don’t feel this is logical, sensible, as well as I feel that this is not respectable way to a person who has tried to make her choice.”

According to an audacious Ishaq it is none of our business what others wear at a government ceremony in our country.

The anchor interviewing her, Andrew Nichols, revealed just how over-accommodating we Canadians can be: “You wanted a small, from what I understand, the ceremony was small. They closed the building for you. You were kind enough to invite the CBC, Susan Ormiston was there, why did you want it to be a small ceremony?”

The demanding Ishaq then revealed she felt her life would be in danger at a larger ceremony.

At the very least, Ishaq’s story is going to keep the niqab fray front and center a few more days of this winding down campaign.

What’s astounding about the recent media hysteria is the instinctual reaction of Canada’s media watchdogs to Harper’s Pavlovian bell. Despite anti-niqab sentiments recently increasing to nearly 80 per cent, the Canadian media still ignores the general public’s view on the issue.

So why would an anti-Harper media press continue to harp on a losing issue? First and foremost, the press dishonestly assert it is Harper’s agenda to keep pushing divisive and trivial issues like the niqab to cloak the many failings of his record. Yet, recent job numbers, along with a growing economy and the fortuitous signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal all bode well for Harper’s re-election. Maybe the media’s claim that Harper is desperate to distract and detract Canadians from other issues really only applies to themselves. And the media–the PC police–also wants to use its own dog-whistle to further brand the CPC as racist bigots focused on fomenting fear and hatred.

Whatever the motives may be of the press, they’re undoubtedly filled with a fear of Harper being re-elected. The recent poll numbers do not indicate the niqab issue is hurting the CPC, and why would it when four-fifths of the public support the niqab ban? (Ironically the beginning of the niqab fray was devastating for NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair whom had to clarify at the debate his previously conflicting English and French answers on the niqab issue. His pro-niqab pronouncement was seen by Quebecers as a flip-flopping betrayal, and he paid a heavy defrayal. Mulcair’s loss was Harper’s gain as the Conservatives have surged in La Belle Province.) The only way it could perhaps hurt the CPC is if the public grows weary of the niqab issue’s undeserved prominent coverage and blame Harper as the main culprit for its prevalence, instead of rightly blaming the gatekeepers of editorial boardrooms in Toronto.

It would indeed be shameful if the Canadian mainstream media continues to dim and strangle its campaign coverage and dialogue with the niqab issue over the final days. But let’s face it, the mainstream media can’t pull the wool over our eyes. Ultimately they will not dictate the infinitely superior reasons why Canadians will cast their ballots on October 19.

The CBC’s Insolent Election Bias

As Canada’s federal election is less than a month away, the CBC is now a full-fledged left-wing partisan mouthpiece. If you thought the BBC was bad, it has nothing on its bastardized clone. Canada’s public broadcaster—despite its cute mandate to reflect the views of all Canadians—has devoted itself to mocking Conservative Leader Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all the while lauding and defending Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. (NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair hitherto received tepid coverage, but since polls consistently show him evenly splitting the 60-65 per cent of voters desiring change, he has lately been in the CBC’s crosshairs.)

The Mother Corp’s darling Trudeau is given affectionate Putinesque coverage by our state broadcaster. Perusing the CBC’s website, one can see Trudeau boxing with his trainer; Trudeau sipping a beer; Trudeau cuddling his baby boy; Trudeau walking his other son to the park; Trudeau taking his kids to school; Trudeau paddling down a river in a canoe. Of course these moments are contrasted with less flattering pictures of the other two leaders at press junkets, but the intimate nature of many of Trudeau’s shots suggest he is either accompanied by a personal photographer or stalked by paparazzi.

And the bias goes far beyond the aesthetic qualities of the CBC’s selected photographs. A minute-long video of Trudeau paddling down the Bow River was inexplicably tweeted by our state broadcaster. No commentary provided—no story to be told—just a rustic scene of a man enjoying the outdoors. The video coincided nicely with junior Trudeau’s pledge to give CBC an additional 150 million dollars to its annual billion dollar federal subsidy.

Conversely, the public broadcaster’s coverage of the CBC-cutting Harper has been marked by juvenile petulance. From a video montage mocking Harper’s repetition of addressing his audiences as “friends,” to using a picture of the CPC’s Facebook page to accompany an article entitled “Facebook building a dislike button” (apparently by mistake), the CBC constantly portrays the CPC and Harper in a negative light.

Even more telling is a juxtaposition of the CBC’s headlines of its hero and villian. Here are some effusive headlines from the CBC’s Trudeau puff pieces: “Justin Trudeau shows love for Montreal Canadiens,” “Trudeau commits $900M to boost high-tech innovation,” “Trudeau slams Mulcair and Harper for attacks on father’s record,” “Justin Trudeau promises to make family reunification easier for immigrants,” “Justin Trudeau takes back seat to ‘star’ candidates in new Liberal ad,” “Justin Trudeau stakes his claim to prove he’s the true anti-Harper candidate,” “Trudeau vows to bring back long form census, restore respect for public service, end Harper ‘war on science,’” “Trudeau cites his daughter as a reason for Elizabeth May to join debate,” “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, Justin Trudeau hammers Harper on ‘old-stock’” and “Justin Trudeau built for speed and risk, says snowboarding pal.” These are not cherry-picked articles, but run-of-the-mill spin churned from the Mother Corp.

Yet, even when the gaffe-prone Trudeau slips, the CBC comes to his aid. “Justin Trudeau leaves some deficit wiggle room” was the euphemistic headline the broadcaster chose after Trudeau flip-flopped within the span of a week from promising to keep balanced budgets to declaring to run three large consecutive deficits if in power.

Meanwhile, here are some of the public broadcaster’s attacks leveled at Harper and the CPC: “Muslim Conservative ‘completely’ disagrees her party is racist,” “Stephen Harper may have lost touch with Alberta values, Notley says,” “Stephen Harper booed in absentia after skipping women’s issues interview,” “Stephen Harper’s ‘old-stock Canadians’: Politics of division or simple slip?” (the CBC willfully ignored the other leaders past use of the same term), “Wayne Gretzky to endorse Harper even though he can’t vote” and “Quebec Tory candidate says women ‘absolutely not’ underrepresented in party.” The CBC constantly attempts to brand the CPC as a group of racist and misogynistic bigots.

(Sometimes the CBC goes a little overzealous in its attacks on Harper and has made slight revisions to screeds, only after much outrage from the public.)

The only silver lining Canadian conservatives can take from their public broadcaster’s open hostility to their party is that the Corpse has only a dying influence. The CBC allegedly plans to sell off all of its buildings, consistently records the worst ratings in its history and is plagued by show hosts’ scandals. Despite the constant barrage of attacks by the CBC, the CPC remains locked above 30 per cent, leading the other two parties in many recent polls.

Just this week Harper commented on the CBC’s woes: The reason for the difficulties aren’t the cuts…The reason is the loss of audience. It’s a problem for the CBC to fix.”

It is a valid criticism as the CBC, unlike the BBC, is able to make ad revenue on all of its platforms. If the CBC could only find new relevancy with average Canadians it could increase ad revenue.

Of course the CBC doesn’t see it that way. President Hubert Lacroix, in typical bureaucratic fashion, suggested more regulatory fees are the antidote instead of gaining a renewed audience of Canadian citizens.

Even more disturbing than Lacroix’s denial and delusion of his network’s many failures is the glaring conflicts of interest many CBC reporters fell into when covering the election. Ezra Levant and The Rebel broke the news that the Canadian Media Guild–the union that represents over six-thousand journalists–is registered and actively campaigning against the Conservatives. Furthermore, top executives are on leave of absences to join Trudeau’s campaign team.

Is it any wonder then why the CBC churns out anti-Harper and pro-Trudeau propaganda? Its windfall and very existence hang in the balance.

Note to reader: I will be launching a crowdfunding account for this blog in the near future, but for now if you’d like to support my work please go to Loonie Politics and become a member. A subscription costs $5 a month, but with the promo code Gordon the yearly membership only costs $40, and I get a portion of the proceeds. On top of getting original content by me, you’ll also get pieces from veteran columnists Warren Kinsella and Michael Taube, as well as other up-and-comers like J. J. McCullough, editorial cartoons by Jeff Burney, and podcasts on the latest in politics. Click here to subscribe http://looniepolitics.com/register/.

An Immodest Proposal for Helping Displaced Economic Migrants of the World by Relocating them All to Canada

The widely ridiculed Mother Canada statue planned for Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton is going to be erected for the fallen Canadians of overseas conflicts. But it could very well be repurposed as our version of the Statue of Liberty; a welcoming beacon for the millions of displaced people scattered across the world. Mother Canada’s outstretched arms—facing the Atlantic—can embrace the war-ravaged and poor-stricken as they enter our land of peace. With a population of only 35 million and a land area of almost 10 million square kilometres, Canada has the space for the UN’s estimated 60 million forcibly displaced.

Since the blessed saint Angela Merkel decided her country has plenty of lebensraum and declared the Rhineland wide-open for 800,000 Syrian refugees, this year alone, the EU has experienced an intensified deluge of economic migrants.

Merkel’s commendable disregard of the draconian Dublin Regulation—along with the Schengen Area allowing the free flow of passport-less people throughout the EU—signaled to millions of dissatisfied, desperate, and displaced Middle Easterns and North Africans that free passage to a frontier of greener pastures was awaiting them.

Merkel’s generosity sadly reinforced Wilde’s cynical aphorism: no good deed goes unpunished. Xenophobic fascists have torched refugee accommodations, beaten asylum seekers and mobilized protests. But Merkel and her new makeshift policy cannot be blamed for the inhospitable behaviour of her bigoted compatriots.

At a press conference, one of these racists had the gall to question the wise German Chancellor’s resolution to take in a massive amount of the world’s displaced Muslims.

“[Y]our responsibilities is also to protect our own citizens in Europe…there is a great fear here in Europe because Islamization seems to…grow stronger. So…how do you…protect Europe?…[H]ow do you propose to protect our own culture from this?”

“…[U]nfortunately, the European Union has contributed myriad fighters as well [in Syria and Iraq]. And therefore we can’t just…say this…has nothing to do with us because those are people, sometimes very young people, who grew up in our countries, and this is where we bear also a responsibility. Secondly…fear has never been a good adviser, neither in our personal lives nor in our society. Cultures and societies that are shaped by fear, will without doubt not get a grip on the future,” replied Merkel.

As the childless and cool-headed chancellor looks to the future, she realizes her ageing nation needs replacement bodies to preserve itself as an economic powerhouse. Better to fill the nation with childbearing people than let it go uninhabited.

Merkel’s good deed also didn’t go unnoticed by organized crime. The deadly race to the land of Black Forest cake enticed swaths to take huge gambles. This is most likely what led Abdullah Kurdi to attempt smuggling his family and others across the tumultuous Mediterranean.

Shortly after images of Kurdi’s son’s lifeless body became ubiquitous worldwide and sparked international ire, Terry Glavin wrote a damning article in the National Post that claimed the Canadian federal government had blood on its hands. The boy’s aunt, a resident of Canada, along with an NDP candidate, Fin Donnelly, accused the conservative government of rejecting the family’s refugee application. Donnelly, in delirious re-election fever, claimed they had filled out the proper government documentation. However, it was later revealed they had only submitted an unofficial letter and never followed up on a government request for proper documents.

But, whatever the truth (the media mostly failed to retract), the political damage was done. The former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was brought on CBC’s Power & Politics for an inquisition. The neutral host, Rosemary Barton, eviscerated the—in Glavin’s words—“jackass.”

As this unfolded in the midst of an election cycle, the media flamed the moral panic until it was a hot button issue on the campaign trail. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pressed by Peter Mansbridge (many Canadians consider him to be our modern Cronkite).

“But are we doing enough?”

“What’s enough Peter? … There are millions—millions—of displaced persons that we know of whose survival—day-to-day survival is in jeopardy. Notwithstanding how terrible this is, there is no refugee-based solution alone to that problem. We’re not going to bring millions, tens-of-millions of people out of these regions, we can’t depopulate them, that’s not a solution. Obviously part of the solution is helping those that are most vulnerable, but we also need to counter the cause of this problem, which is a violent movement attempting to conquer an area, and kill and displace millions-and-millions of people.”

“But are we resigning our self to the fact that we are going to keep having to look at pictures like we saw the other day of that three-year old boy?”

In indignant indifference the hard-hearted Harper remains unmoved by ghastly images of a child’s death.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s answer to the crisis was much more compassionate, suggesting Canada cease its combat role against ISIS (clearly not the root of the problem), take a humanitarian role in the region, and bring in 25,000 refugees. The NDP’s leader Thomas Mulcair upped the ante, agreeing in ceasing the combat mission, but also suggesting welcoming 50,000 Syrian refugees to Canada.

Though the latter two parties’ higher quotas are welcome change, the leaders should realize the migrant crisis will only intensify as civil war continues to cause mass exodus from the region as well as Jean-Claude Junker and EU parliament’s plan magnetizes the EU, attracting thousands-upon-thousands more economic migrants.

If Canadians really don’t want to resign themselves to looking at more horrific pictures, then we need to open our borders to the millions-upon-millions now eyeing Europe. Our former chief of defense stated the military could bring 50,000 refugees by cruise ship, if we scaled up the process we could bring them all.

Discrimination is a human frailty that should be eradicated wherever possible, but distinguishing and understanding the new arrivals will be key in their resettling in Canada smoothly. According to the UN, they are approximately 69 per cent men, 13 per cent children, and 12 per cent women. Half of them are actually Syrian, but the rest are predominantly from Islamic-populated nations.

After dealing with the basic living essentials, accommodating our new countrymen’s ideological beliefs will be of utmost importance.

Perhaps Sharia Law can be revisited for the Muslims of Ontario. Toronto SlutWalk attendees will need to dress in more modest attire and be vigilant in coming years. The Toronto Pride Parade will probably need to tone down festivities, if not disband entirely.

But again, Canadians pride themselves in multicultural tolerance, and we’ve got the land and the heart to accommodate all the world’s displaced.