Connect with us

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

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Canada Fulfills the Dystopian Vision

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

The country our ancestors built is being torn down. The welfare state runs on massive deficits, increasing our public fiscal slavery. Cancel culture kills free speech. The government funds the Anti-Hate Network to oppose religious conservatives,  which negatively  stereotypes them.

Poet T.S. Elliot once wrote, “This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” Canada has fallen but has all the illusion of being what it always was. Many Canadians fail to see a dystopian future foretold decades ago has arrived. Our institutions are failing us.

In Orwellian fashion, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has transformed Canadian values in the pretense of upholding them. They eliminated federal laws that made Sunday a day of rest, forced the provision of abortion and euthanasia in the name of the security of the person, and banned prayer from city hall meetings in the name of religious freedom.

The pandemic cranked the judges’ distorted amp right up to 11. In B.C., Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson struck down public health orders banning protests, but quizzically maintained the ban on religious assembly. Elsewhere, the hypocrisy just continued, laws or no laws.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could bow the knee at Black Lives Matter protests that exceeded gathering limits, while those who did so for church services or rallies against mandates were prosecuted–or even persecuted. The Walmarts and Superstores were packed, while the churches and small businesses sat empty.

Doctors who prescribed ivermectin, one of the safest and widely effective drugs of all time, faced medical censure–even if their actions saved lives. Medical colleges became bodies that betray the profession’s values by banning medical opinions and the off-label use of drugs when it contradicts poor policies based on weak evidence.

The media, which should have been pushing back at this nonsense, went along with the charade as if it was the right thing to do. Any perspective that could foment doubt against the recommendations and policies of those in power was banned. Such is the practice of authoritarian countries, which is what Canada became.

As law professor Bruce Pardy has noted, Canada has shifted from the rule of law to the rule by laws. Here, legal systems manage the public and the law and courts fail to call the governments to account. A rally that’s permitted one minute can be trampled by the Emergencies Act the next, while  donors to a protest see their bank accounts seized. Did you lose your job for refusing a vaccine? Too bad. Oh, and you don’t get EI either.

The pandemic and its fear subsided, but neither sober reflection nor an adequate reckoning arrived. People kept getting COVID after the vaccinations, yet some are getting booster shots to this day. Analysts such as Denis Rancourt, credit public responses, including vaccines, for worldwide excess mortality of 17 million. Yet, the bombshell falls like a dud, either ignored or diffused by dismissive “fact-checkers.”  The life expectancy of Canadians dropped two full years and barely a shoulder was shrugged.

Even our elections fail to inspire confidence. In many municipalities, programmable computers count the votes and no one checks or scrutinizes the paper ballots. In other cases, paper ballots don’t exist–it’s all done on screen. A computer gets the trust a single individual would never receive.

The country our ancestors built is being torn down. The welfare state runs on massive deficits, increasing our public fiscal slavery. Cancel culture kills free speech. The government funds the Anti-Hate Network to oppose religious conservatives,  which negatively  stereotypes them.

Gender ideology, now entrenched in law and schools, is facilitating a wedge between traditional values and woke values and between parents and their children. It even challenges the objective truth of biological reality. Truth has become what we feel, overriding rational norms, facts, and our inherited society.

Like George Orwell’s 1984, if the government says 2 + 2 = 5, then that’s what it is, and anyone who fails to accept it becomes an enemy of the state. Orwell’s novel envisioned a time when false propaganda like “war is peace” and “freedom is slavery” would prevail. The dystopia has arrived. Anyone who refers to someone by their biological sex is accused of misgendering hate.

Unfortunately,the dark vision of Aldous Huxley is also unfolding. In 1958, the author of Brave New World Revisited predicted,

“By means of ever more effective methods of mind manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms – elections, parliaments, supreme courts, and all the rest – will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the shows as they see fit.”

It’s especially sad to watch our elderly maintain trust in government and mainstream media narratives when the days they deserved it have left us. Like petrified wood, the forms of our institutions remain but their composition has entirely changed. Our democratic, legal, and media institutions, our schools and hospitals, are failing us badly.

Canada has fallen, but many Canadians can’t see it because there’s no rubble.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

It’s Time To Stop Church Arsons And What Fuels Them

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Religious freedoms and the right to worship have been a recognized hallmark of civilized societies for centuries. The preamble of Canada’s constitution says our country is built on the principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God and the rule of law. In defiance of both, almost 600 Canadian places of worship have suffered arson in recent years. Nothing could be more unCanadian.

The stats were revealed by Member of Parliament Marc Dalton following a formal inquiry to the federal government. The response showed 592 arsons had been set on places of worship between 2010 and 2022. they rose from 58 in 2020 to 90 in 2021, then down to 74 in 2022.

The peak coincides with claims made in May of 2021 that the remains of 215 school children had been discovered on the site of the former Kamloops Residential School.

Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a subsequent wave of church burnings “unacceptable and wrong” he also called their likely motivations “real and fully understandable.” This hardly doused the flames.

These arsons far outnumber those made on Canadian churches in the 1920s by the Ku Klux Klan, which opposed non-Protestants and non-whites. In those years the KKK desecrated Sarnia’s St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. They killed ten people when they set Saint-Boniface College in Winnipeg on fire. They also burned the Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Quebec. In 1926, three Klan members were jailed after they blew up St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Barrie, Ont.

The Klan soon fizzled out, seemingly unlike these recent church burnings. The 110-year-old Notre-Dame-des-Sept-Allégresses Catholic church burned down in Trois-Rivières, Quebec last month, but whether arson was involved has not been confirmed.

The presence of bodies underneath the former residential school in Kamloops has not been confirmed either. A 1924 septic field could also account for soil anomalies found there by ground-penetrating radar. Eight million federal tax dollars spent to investigate the site have yielded no remains and details on how the money was spent are sketchy. It’s high time the site was excavated to confirm or rule out the graves and do autopsies on any corpses found there.

Federal funds also fuel the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), the Orwellian title for a group that fuels resentment against socially conservative organizations with negative characterizations. On August 7, CAHN published “40 Ways To Fight The Far-Right: Tactics for Community Activists in Canada” thanks to $640,000 from Ottawa.

“White boys and men make up the majority of people involved in hate-promoting movements,” the handbook explains. Pro-life and pro-parent groups, CAHN says, are among those “characterized by racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, anti-2SLGBTQ+ views, and pro-colonialist/ anti-Indigenous bigotry.”

CAHN says the Catholic-dominated, pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition is a “hate movement.” Liberty Coalition Canada, a legal defence organization, and the activist organization Action4Canada are similarly denigrated for their alleged belief that Canada was founded on Christian values and attempts to reassert such values.

Meanwhile, the CAHN guide advocates “antifascist” doxing, including infiltration of right-leaning organizations. getting people fired, and ending friendships.

Dalton’s Bill C-411 the “Anti-Arson Act” would do more to deter hate-motivated crimes than CAHN ever will. The legislation would punish those who set fires and explosions at religious places. A first offence would get a mandatory five-year jail sentence, while subsequent offenses would prompt seven years.

When respect for the supremacy of God and the rule of law fail, rights give way to wrongs. It’s time to stop the fires and the disputable claims that fuel them, and restore respect for people of faith, their right to worship, and their places of worship.

Lee Harding is a Research Associate for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X