Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Moscow attack highlights need for secure borders

Published

11 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Are candid questions about border security and immigration really semi-racist, or are they legitimate self protection? Are questions about unchecked people entering our countries from parts of the world where Islamists have great influence “Islamophobia”, or are such questions perfectly understandable given the Islamist-inspired attacks that occur with regularity around the globe?

The shocking terrorist attack that took place on March 22, 2024 near Moscow is still reverberating around the globe. Exactly who was responsible for the attack and why it happened is not completely clear. One of the many Islamist terrorist factions, IS Khorason Province, has taken “credit” for the bloody massacre, but the details are murky. To add to the murk the videos that have emerged showing large powerful shooters that some say stand in stark contrast to the videos showing smaller and less robust Tajik suspects confessing to being the shooters. So, conspiracy theories are flying.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin seems intent on trying to blame Ukraine, but that is entirely predictable. Everything Putin says is now taken with a grain of salt by the international community. Ukraine does not appear to be connected. What is known is that Putin was warned recently by the U.S. that exactly such an attack was in the works, but angrily blew off the warning as American propaganda. How Russians will react to this information -or even if they will find out about it – is not known. We don’t know much more than that at this time. Hopefully the details will become clearer with the passage of time.

However, two facts about the incident that do appear to be reasonably certain are that the perpetrators were not Russians, and that the attack was related to an Islamist terror group that hates Russia – and apparently everyone else that does not share their philosophy.

That definitely includes Canada. Should we worry about such an attack taking place here?

At one time the answer would be “probably not”. Canada was a nation with a sophisticated, well-regulated immigration system that weeded out potential terrorists, and tightly controlled borders. A dangerous person might still get in, but chances are that even if he did his movements would be monitored, and he would be stopped before committing an atrocity. But not anymore.

This all changed when Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015. Canadians were mystified when he told the New York Times that Canada was a “post national state”. What did he mean?

What he meant began to become clear when he sent out his famous January, 2017 tweet basically inviting any global resident who cared to come to Canada – no questions asked.

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,’

And thousands did. Roxham Road became internationally famous as a pleasant lane where any global resident with the wherewithal to fly to the United States could get a cab to Roxham Road, and simply walk into Canada. They would then agree to show up at an immigration hearing they had no intention of attending. And that would be it. They would stay as long as they liked.

Canadians began to understand the implications of being a “post-national state”. Because does such an entity as a “post-national state” even need borders, border guards, border security – or even an army, for that matter? Aren’t concerns about terrorists getting into your country rather silly now if Canada had apparently evolved past that outdated “nation state” stage? And why even be concerned with how many people were entering the country if borders weren’t really relevant any longer?

So people came. Anyone who raised questions about this radical new philosophy was branded as something akin to a racist or white supremacist. Or, worst of all – “like Donald Trump”, who had famously questioned the wisdom of allowing free entry into the U.S. of people from countries where Islamist philosophy prevails.

This worked. The Conservatives were thoroughly intimidated. So they basically remained silent, while millions of immigrants and foreign “students” flooded into the country, with little in the way of background checks.

In recent years the number of people coming into Canada as asylum seekers, foreign students, or immigrants in other categories has been astounding. Last year alone, Canada had an additional 550,000 immigrants, but more than 1,000,000 foreign students.

These are staggering numbers. Most of these people are probably peaceful and productive people. But how many of them are not? How many of the million “students”, for example, might have ties to the same Islamic terrorist group that terrorized Moscow?

The fact is that we don’t know. The numbers coming in are too great. They are coming in too fast. And they are not being properly checked. The frightening reality is that if even a tiny fraction of these virtually unchecked people are terrorists Canada could see tragedy unfold any day of the week.

Many of these foreign students appear to be involved in the lawless and shockingly antisemitic protests, now occurring daily in public places, and even in Jewish neighborhoods – sometimes directly in front of synagogues! In January, 2024 National Post commented on this frightening phenomenon:

“In recent months, we have witnessed a critical mass of antisemitic Canadians willing to vandalize Jewish businesses, protest relentlessly for a Palestinian nation-state “from the river to the sea” and even threaten police officers with death.”

The Post notes that most of the most violent protests appear to involve new immigrants and foreign students from Muslim nations. It would be a slur on these people to suggest that they are tied to an Islamist terrorist group, like the IS-K group claiming responsibility for the deadly rampage in Moscow. And yet, Canadians who are witnessing this alarming antisemitism have a right to know with whom they are sharing their country. That is the right of every citizen.

Our neighbours to the south are worried about terrorism as well. Millions of unchecked migrants have simply walked into Texas, Arizona and California since 2020. If even a tiny fraction of these unchecked migrants are terrorists there will be major trouble ahead. Recently, Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has warned about the likelihood of a terror attack occurring because of these lax or completely absent border controls.

Britain, and all of Europe are also beginning to realize that the almost unrestricted, and unregulated immigration into their countries is placing them at great risk. Because of these understandable concerns the unwritten taboo about citizens asking candid questions about the backgrounds of newcomers to their countries is starting to break down. Simply put, people don’t want terrorists entering their countries.

That includes citizens of Russia. We don’t know how events will play out in Moscow. Is this just the first of many similar attacks in Moscow and elsewhere, or is it just a one-off?

But perhaps it will get us all thinking more clearly. Are candid questions about border security and immigration really semi-racist, or are they legitimate self protection? Are questions about unchecked people entering our countries from parts of the world where Islamists have great influence “Islamophobia”, or are such questions perfectly understandable given the Islamist-inspired attacks that occur with regularity around the globe? Should we continue to write off any political party that dares ask these questions as “far-right” or “anti-immigrant” or should we listen to the questions that they raise and take these concerns seriously?

Ordinary citizens throughout the western world are starting to wake up and realize that it is not racist, or “far right”, to demand to know who is being let into our countries. We all want peaceful, productive immigrants who share our basic values. But we have the right to know that is who they are before we let them in. Who we allow into our country is of vital importance to us, and we should not be afraid to say so. We have a right to expect that our borders are secure.

Perhaps at some stage in human evolution borders will no longer be necessary, because we will all be living in some peaceful, post-national state. But until that glorious day comes, we need secure borders, and we need to have good information about anyone who wants to cross them.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Budget 2024 as the eve of 1984 in Canada

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michael Melanson

Those who claim there are unmarked burials have painted themselves into a corner. If there are unmarked burials, there have had to be murders because why else would anyone attempt to conceal the deaths?

The Federal Government released its Budget 2024 last week. In addition to hailing a 181% increase in spending on Indigenous priorities since 2016, “Budget 2024 also proposes to provide $5 million over three years, starting in 2025-26, to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to establish a program to combat Residential School denialism.” Earlier this spring, the government proclaimed:

The government anticipates the Special Interlocutor’s final report and recommendations in spring 2024. This report will support further action towards addressing the harmful legacy of residential schools through a framework relating to federal laws, regulations, policies, and practices surrounding unmarked graves and burials at former residential schools and associated sites. This will include addressing residential school denialism.

Like “Reconciliation,” the exact definition of what the Federal government means by “residential school denialism” is not clear. In this vague definition, there is, of course, a potential for legislating vindictiveness.

What further action is needed to address “the harmful legacy of residential schools” except to enforce a particular narrative about the schools as being only harmful? Is it denialism to point out that many students, such as Tomson Highway and Len Marchand, had positive experiences at the schools and that their successful careers were, in part, made possible by their time in residential school? If the study of history is subordinated to promoting a particular political narrative, is it still history or has it become venal propaganda?

Since the sensational May 27, 2021, claim that 215 children’s remains had been found in a Kamloops orchard, the Trudeau government has been chasing shibboleths. The Kamloops claim remains unsubstantiated to this day in two glaring ways: no names of children missing from the Kamloops IRS (Indian Residential Schools) have been presented and no human remains have been uncovered. For anyone daring to point out this absence of evidence, their reward is being the target of a witch hunt. As we recently witnessed in Quesnel, B.C., to be labeled as a residential school denialist is to be drummed out of civil society.

If we must accept a particular political narrative of the IRS as the history of the IRS, does our freedom of conscience and speech have any meaning?

To the discredit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, fictions of missing and murdered children circulating long before the Commission’s inception were subsumed by the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission). Unmarked graves and burials were incorporated into the TRC’s work as probable evidence of foul play. In the end, the TRC found no evidence of any murders committed by any staff against any students throughout the entirety history of the residential schools. Unmarked graves are explained as formerly marked and lawful graves that had since become lost due to neglect and abandonment. Unmarked burials, if they existed, could be construed as evidence of criminal acts, but such burials associated with the schools have never been proven to exist.

Those who claim there are unmarked burials have painted themselves into a corner. If there are unmarked burials, there have had to be murders because why else would anyone attempt to conceal the deaths? If there are thousands of unmarked burials, there are thousands of children who went missing from residential schools. How could thousands of children go missing from schools without even one parent, one teacher, or one Chief coming forward to complain?

There are, of course, neither any missing children nor unmarked burials and the Special Interlocutor told the Senate Committee on Indigenous People: “The children aren’t missing; they’re buried in the cemeteries. They’re missing because the families were never told where they’re buried.”

Is it denialism to repeat or emphasize what the Special Interlocutor testified before a Senate Committee? Is combating residential school denialism really an exercise in policing wrongthink? Like the beleaguered Winston in Orwell’s 1984, it is impossible to keep up with the state’s continual revision of the past, even the recent past.

For instance, the TRC’s massive report contains a chapter on the “Warm Memories” of the IRS. Drawing attention to those positive recollections is now considered “minimizing the harms of residential schools.”

In 1984, the state sought to preserve itself through historical revision and the enforcement of those revisions. In the Trudeau government’s efforts to enforce a revision of the IRS historical record, the state is not being preserved. How could it be if the IRS is now considered to be a colossal genocide? The intent is to preserve the party in government and if it means sending Canada irretrievably down a memory hole as a genocidaire, so be it.

Michael Melanson is a writer and tradesperson in Winnipeg.

Continue Reading

Business

Don’t be fooled by high-speed rail

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Randal O’Toole

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

The Canadian government is considering spending $6 billion to $12 billion to introduce what it calls “high-frequency trains” between Toronto and Quebec City. Though some media reports have described these as high-speed trains (which generally means trains capable of going 250 kilometers per hour), they won’t be. Building such a rail line would easily cost $60 billion and probably much more.

Passenger-train advocates argue that Canada needs to join the international race to have the fastest trains in the world. But this is a race Canada can afford to lose because the country has something that is faster and far less costly: jet airliners.

High-speed trains were already obsolete in 1964, when Japan started operating its first bullet trains. Six years before that, Boeing had introduced the 707 and Douglas the DC-8, both of which cruised four times faster than the early bullet trains and twice as fast as the fastest trains in the world today.

Aside from speed, airliners also have a huge cost advantage because they don’t require a lot of expensive infrastructure between cities. While airports are infrastructure, the only infrastructure airliners really need are paved runways and perhaps a Quonset hut for ticket agents, baggage handling, and a waiting room—which is all that some of Canada’s more remote airports have.

Today’s big-city airports with huge concourses, shops, and jetways were built up over time and mostly paid for out of ticket fees. In contrast, rail advocates want taxpayers to put up tens of billions of dollars before a single wheel turns in the hope that trains that are slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and more expensive than both will somehow attract a significant number of travelers.

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

Air Canada and its competitors currently offer more than three dozen flights a day between Toronto and Montreal with fares starting at $118, less than 25 cents per passenger-kilometer. Fares on VIA Rail Canada averaged 68 cents per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and more than half of its costs are subsidized. People are simply not going to ride high-speed trains in large numbers if those trains cost far more than airlines, buses, or driving.

Amtrak’s only high-speed train, the Acela, collected fares of CN$1.80 per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and while Amtrak claims it covers its operating costs, all of its infrastructure costs are paid for by taxpayers. Amtrak brags that it carries more passengers in the Washington-New York corridor than the airlines, but cars and buses in this corridor carry well over 10 times as many intercity passengers as Amtrak.

The other argument rail advocates make is that high-speed trains will offer shorter downtown-to-downtown times than airlines in some markets. But most people neither work nor live downtown. Toronto and Montreal each have three commercial airports and residents are more likely to be near one of those airports than downtown.

Finally, rail proponents claim that high-speed trains will emit fewer greenhouse gases than cars or planes. But as usual they ignore the construction costs—that is, the billions of kilograms of greenhouse gases that would be emitted to build a high-speed rail line. It is likely that operational savings would never recover this cost, especially since it would be far less expensive to power jets and automobiles with biofuels.

One thing is certain: building high-speed or even high-frequency rail will require lots of workers. Far from being a benefit, Canada is currently suffering a labour shortage that is not expected to end soon. If the government decides to spend billions on a rail line, it will only make the costs of housing, cars, and just about everything else rise even faster.

China, Japan, and Spain have practically wrecked their economies by spending too much on high-speed trains. Just because other countries are foolishly building high-speed rail lines doesn’t mean Canada should do so any more than the country should spend billions on other obsolete technologies such as telegraphs, electric typewriters, or slide rules. Taxpayers should tell the government not to waste money on such boondoggles.

Randal O’Toole is a transportation policy analyst and author of Building 21st Century Transit Systems for Canadian Cities. (20 pages) March 12,2024.

Continue Reading

Trending

X