According to Naharnet (see the screenshot at the end of
this post), Nasrallah said today “The WHO has admitted that the health
system in Iran is among the strongest”.
Good for Iran if it is managing its health crisis well despite its
sanctions and regional wars by proxy. Bambi is relieved to hear this because
she cares for the Iranian people (NOT their government), including her friends still
stuck there because of the pandemic.
However, can Mr. Nasrallah explain to the people of Lebanon why he
seems to care more about the Iranian healthcare system than about the Lebanese
one? And what about the economic tragedy in his own country to which his loyalty
should have been in the first place?
Perhaps he is saying all this because deep inside of himself he
knows that if Iran takes a hit, his military future would be jeopardized?
Of course, this in addition to his ideological loyalty
(religious/ethical, etc.), that sadly seems to be bigger than his concern for
his economically agonizing fellow citizens.
Here is a documentary by Euronews, for you Mr. Nasrallah, in
which the World Bank is cited by the journalist as estimating that “more
than 45% of citizens are now living in poverty, according to the World Bank,
and it is estimated this could rise to 75% by the end of the pandemic.”
The above SAD reality is largely because you and your fellow politicians turned Lebanon into a kleptocracy. The latter is a government where corrupt leaders mainly seek personal gain/status at the expense of their governed people.
First, in the link above, we can read that Ms. Mitton is discussing other proposals including grants that “would help small businesses get advice from consultants on how to adapt and recover from COVID-19 restrictions”.
How can such an idea concretely help entrepreneurs and
fuel the economy? Who would decide which list of “consultants” would be
acceptable?
Second, is the business we would get between Amherst and Port Elgin/Sackville worth the risk of undoing all the excellent work by our government in this pandemic, namely by acting fast and closing our borders with three neighbours struggling with covid-19 cases (Québec, NS, and Maine)?
With all due respect to our MLA and her party, Bambi trusts Premier Higgs’ more vast expertise with business. More recently, like her fellow New Brunswickers and Canadians, she has also witnessed NB’s good job when it comes to pandemics.
Of course, blunders happen with the implementation of new
emergency regulations (i.e., borders). Sadly, we saw an excessive case at the
airport last month with a young man coming from Ontario:
We may have also seen some “unclear” stories at our
land border. So, thanks to Ms. Mitton for her concern with this regard.
However, all in all, we can only say that NB has been
doing an excellent job thus far with the pandemic.
Even if we are a smaller, less populated province, we surely acted faster than the federal government with the borders at the beginning (i.e., the increased cases at the beginning of the pandemic in Montreal has made the latter a hot spot for a while now).
Finally, if we read Mr. Kelly Alder’s comment on the New
Wark Times, we learn from it that sadly his family small business (near
Bambi’s place) did not get Ms. Mitton’s support when she was a town councillor
(which Bambi remembers from earlier posts).
Back then, Ms. Mitton preferred to favour bigger
players at the other exit of Sackville (i.e., the Irvings, Esso, etc.). Now,
during the pandemic, she seems to change her colours, asking our federal
government not to support big businesses who may be minimizing their taxes.
With all due respect to all political parties and
elected people, including Ms. Mitton, Bambi tends to agree with Mr. Alder: It
is hard to trust politicians. However, despite the tough nature of politics, we
can come across public servants who earn our trust, slowly but surely. They may
perhaps demonstrate their logical approach or their congruence, or reliability (even
if we may not agree with them at times or even if they make mistakes). One must
also add that crises are golden opportunities to sometimes discover the
leadership or greatness of some men and women.
The banking sector of Lebanon has been falling apart like a sand castle since October 17, 2019, and with it the country’s whole economy.
Due to capital controls, people cannot have access to their savings that they earned by the sweat of their brow.
People lost their jobs. Others their dreams.
Then came the coronavirus crisis that forced the
country to a lockdown for several weeks, forcing businesses to closure.
The whole population got poorer due to the
hyperinflation.
The government is bankrupt. No Lebanese aid to people
(“Santa” Justin does not exist in Beirut’s parliament).
Despite help from the food banks of charity organizations
(in operation again since this week), some families are literally on the brink
of starvation.
Lebanese people have a lot of dignity… Many are not used to depending on external help to economically survive, as described in a France 24 news documentary yesterday.
Despite all this reality, what does Mr. Nasrallah,
head of the Hezbollah tell Lebanese people today?
As you can see below (taken from Naharnet, a
Lebanese daily), he is reassuring them that “we are closer than ever to the
liberation of Jerusalem?”
Mr. Nasrallah, Bambi has a question for you: Do you
think that this is the top priority of your fellow citizens in the middle of
their current double tragedies, the financial crisis and the pandemic?
If you reply yes to her, you must go check your eyesight
and mental health IMMEDIATELY.
“Québec will (almost) reach its target for reducing its carbon emissions for the year 2020. This will happen even if it seemed absolutely impossible on January 1st, 2020. Some see this as a beneficial effect of the current health crisis. I especially see it as a warning.
The most radicals, who demanded swift and binding measures to speed up the hitting of targets, must realize the enormity of the sacrifices they were talking about without knowing it. To meet our targets in a short period of time, we had to stop living. This is the “miracle” of the past two months.
No more traffic because half the people are no longer working. We no longer go out, neither to movie theatres, nor to restaurants, nor to visit friends. People no longer take the highway to visit their parents, as it is prohibited.
Travel has stalled. The vast majority of aircraft remain grounded. Thousands of travel plans are cancelled. The tourism industry is dying.
A flat economy
The majority of businesses and shops have either been closed or slowed down. We are in the worst recession in a century. It means factories that will remain closed. Unemployed people in the tens of thousands will mean fewer car trips each morning.
Unemployment, impoverishment, lackluster living, depression, this is the sample of what it took to live the great success in terms of climate change. We will always be told that this was not the goal and that things would have been done differently if ruling ecologists had imposed these measures rather than a pandemic.
The events of the past few weeks, however, give us an idea of the magnitude. To get the current reduction, carnage had to be done in just about every aspect of life.
Really aware?
As the topic of climate change is very fashionable, many voters said they made it their top priority in last October’s election. I remember hearing constituents say they wanted “governments” to do more for the environment.
Were they really aware of the order of magnitude of the sacrifices that those who advocated rushing headlong into achieving the goals spoke about without delay? Were they ready for such renunciations? I am not sure, really not sure.
I always believed that action on climate change should be gradual, taking into account the economy. I always believed that people would not want to stop living. Science and technology will have to be given time to develop options for fossil fuels. In the case of automobile, electric cars are slowly but surely making their way.
I would like to point out that the hardcore fighters against climate change will now have to be careful before quoting “the Science” from the top of a pedestal. The coronavirus reminded us that science evolves, observes, revises its theses when faced with a new and complex phenomenon”.
Below, you can find 4 images of the open letter sent from the President of the USA to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
What Mr. Trump is pointing to is how the WHO seems to have been captured by China (as a major interest group). He has a point and the behaviour of China, with the cover of the WHO at the beginning of the pandemic, is simply an unacceptable behaviour. Mind you, this latter behaviour would have been also questionable, even if had been engaged in by Canada, Lebanon, or any other country of the world. So, imagine if it is once again by China (i.e., like in 2003 with the SARS crisis, as Mr. Trump referred to on page 3 of his letter).
Now, look at the reaction of our federal Minister of International Development, Ms. Karina Gould. She said “it is not the World Health Organization’s place to question China, arguing that the organization tasked with global public health is a product of its member states, who in turn should be pushing for transparency“:
Of course, she makes sense, if we are looking at the consistency with Canada’s attitude toward China, that’s for sure. Same as Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Hajdu, Dr. Tam, etc. The attitude remains the same: No backbone. Too much economic (+ ideological?) dependence on one single country can kill creativity, prosperity, and even sovereignty… at least intellectually, to begin with.
But it may be economically as well (e.g., mining sector), and not just in the health sector:
China seems to be using the same strategy with us as with those African countries, from which some of the WHO elite come from (e.g., Dr. Ghebreyesus).
Perhaps Canada is afraid of receiving the same treatment as Australia, namely an economic punishment by China for having also denounced its behaviour (with France, Germany, the European Union, and many smaller countries)?
Perhaps Canada (or rather Mr. Trudeau personally) is aspiring for a high (or the highest?) position within the UN (or its WHO office, who knows? Or that may be also Dr. Tam’s own ambitions)?
Perhaps it is just a political-economic choice of alignment because of interests to Canada that we are missing, as citizens?
Perhaps Mr. Trudeau can see things more clearly than all of is, as our PM? Maybe he has a vision for Canada after all, hoping it is not just about it moving backward.
Bambi’s and her spouse’s friend Len died :(. To honour him, she would like to share the following: (1) Two beautiful pictures taken by him in 2011 in Sackville and (2) a message they posted for him and his family (Mark/Odette) on his obituary site that, for some technical reason, does not seem to be working. In case the website is broken, here is their message again:
A wonderful picture taken by Mr. Leonard Standring in 2011 in Sackville, NB
Another great picture taken by Mr. Leonard Standring in 2011 in Sackville, NB
Dearest Len, what an honour to have met you… Thank you
for whom you are and for the wonderful moments of friendship.
What a GREAT man with a sharp sense of humour, much intelligence,
talent, a big heart, and such a beautiful smile… Not surprising that you made
many friends wherever you lived.
Just to make you smile from wherever you/your spirit may be, whilst praying for you now, I (Bambi is saying this) smiled to your memory, even spontaneously thinking/telling you the following: “I do not mind if England will win all its future soccer games against Germany, for the rest of my life, as long as it makes you happy in heaven”… I know, I will likely regret what I said tomorrow morning, but at least the thought crossed my mind (and I did mean it, Len ?).
More seriously, you will be missed by many who love
you, just like us. Rest in peace now… and may your memory be eternal.
Mark, we are happy to know that you were by your dad’s
side when he died peacefully… May you and Odette find peace in your hearts, day
after day, remembering that you have honoured him all his life, until his last
breath. Bless you both for that.
The bottom line of all these articles is to criticize,
another time, the province of Québec for its secular law… Instead of accepting:
(1) Bill 21, which is a law now; (2) that there are different historico-cultural
approaches to conceiving secularism; and (3) that Québec spent 10 years
debating reasonable accommodations to reach this consensus. Yes, Québec chose massively
to vote its current government, which succeeded in passing the law on
secularism (which is even more moderate than the secularism approach of France).
As a reminder, the bill states that no public servant in a position of authority can wear a religious symbol (e.g., the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly, administrative justices of the peace, special clerks, clerks, deputy clerks, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, clerks and deputy clerks respecting municipal courts, and bankruptcy registrars, , the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, and persons who exercise the function of lawyer, notary or criminal and penal prosecuting attorney and who are under the authority of a government department, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, principals, vice principals and teachers of educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a school board, etc..). In addition, for security reasons, Bill 21 also applies to “persons who present themselves to receive a service from a staff member of a public body must have their face uncovered where doing so.”
Bambi has posted
extensively on Bill 21 (please see below if you are interested).
Of note, the Toronto Star article cited above
reports comments by Dr. Jeffrey Reitz, director of the ethnic, immigration and
pluralism studies program at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global
Affairs and Public Policy. According to Dr. Reitz, “The comparison between
Quebec’s secularism law and the COVID-19 mask directives is clear… But people
have largely avoided connecting the two issues because while medical masks and
religious face coverings may be similar in practice, they symbolize different
things.”
As per this article, Dr. Reitz added that COVID-19
masks make citizens feel secure… “they’re being protected from possible
disease… there are very strong stereotypes that people have of Muslim women
wearing traditional clothing…”. The latter sentence is completed by the author
of the article, Ms. Jillian Kestler-D’Amours
(a woman!) with the following words “such as face coverings”.
Mr. Reitz is cited saying the following as well: “That
mainstream perception is actually based on no facts at all, but just on these
fears and stereotypes”.
To score her point further, Ms. Kestler D’Amours also
interviewed a woman who used to wear a burqa (removing it to find a job, it
seems).
Bambi does not know if she should laugh or cry at
the absurdity of this piece of so-called article and the comments of the interviewees.
Note that the picture chosen to illustrate the topic is a woman wearing a burqa! Yes, a burqa like the one shown herein:
The picture taken from the Toronto Star article
The burqa is an extreme version of a head cover. In MANY Muslim countries, this outfit is imposed on women and even on teenage girls (when they reach puberty) and sometimes on even much younger kids, as we can observe around us in Canada.
Some women (18+) wearing the burqa could have escaped their
countries of birth to come to a more secular society like Québec.
Tragically but luckily not too many of these women may be killed, in the name of “honour killing”, if they deviate from rigorously conservative social traditions.
Luckily, a recent article has been published in
reaction to the above papers, namely by Mr. Mathieu-Bock (Journal de Montréal)
who knows both the French and French-Canadian cultures well:
In the title of his article, Mr. Bock-Côté reminded us
that “a mask is not a niqab”.
To all those so-called progressive journalists (academicians and even politicians, wearing a headscarf in their kind messages of Ramadan wishes, as you can see below), Bambi would like to say the following:
Extremists, namely Islamists who are not the vast majority of Muslims luckily, use our Canadian kindness/tolerance (i.e., multicultural approach) to push their radical agenda further. This may be facilitated by the fact that their religion, and surely its interpretation, does not differentiate between the private and public spheres.
So, surely without wanting to, these intellectuals (or social justice warriors or so-called progressive advocates, etc.) may be, in the short and especially long term, serving Islamists, rather than women whom they think they are advocating for.
If you do not believe Bambi about such risk, look to what
happened in the Iranian revolution between those well-meaning intellectuals
(likely on the left side too, like our society). Well, the Islamists pushed
them aside and took over. Look at a recent example of how Iran is treating a
female researcher, with double citizenship from Iran and France. She has been thrown
in jail for 5 years ☹:
To conclude this post, our Canadian “feminists” seem
to forget, once again, that there is no single type of woman (or man, by the
way). Period. Same for Muslim women who are diverse as well. Their implicit alliance
with Islamists can backfire one day on some of these women… and who knows,
perhaps even on all of us in several years from now, especially if there is no public
debate on reasonable accommodations like in Québec.
Last but nor least, one earlier post by Bambi on our federal banks that are promoting head scarfs in young girls now… in the name of diversity. Mind you, since this post, Bambi has seen the same picture (taken in Moncton, NB) at another CIBC branch in Amherst, NS (of course before the closure of borders between NB and NS!):
First, here is a cartoon to begin this post dedicated to Québec with some humour.
A cartoon by Mr. Yannick Lemay (Journal de Québec). We can read the following: “40 years later, did we make the right choice?”. We can see Mr. René Lésveque and Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau in heaven flying over Québec and saying: NON (red sign held by Trudeau) and YES (blue sign held by Lévesque). The opposite of the results of the two referendums (all depending on the question, obviously).
Second, here is a thoughtful article by Mr. Mario Dumont pubished in the Journal de Montréal and entitled «Le cycle des échecs» [this means «The cycle of failures»]. Below, you can find an English translation of his text:
“In
initiating the referendum process over forty years ago, René Lévesque had no
idea of the cascade of events that would follow. A series of failures in Québec in its
desire to assert itself. NO in Québec, NO in Canada, setbacks, disappointments.
First on May 20, 1980, Québeckers said no to the PQ government, which asked for a mandate to negotiate “sovereignty-association”. Lévesque found himself weakened in front of Ottawa.
There was still hope: to convince Québeckers, Pierre E. Trudeau had made a commitment to reform the Canadian Constitution to meet Québec’s expectations. In 1982, Trudeau did reform Canada, but Québec’s interests were no longer on the agenda. Another failure: Québec did not even sign the new repatriated Constitution. It has been imposed on us.
Meech
The arrival of Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives rekindles hope. To correct the 1982 affront, he negotiated with the provincial premiers the Meech Lake Accord. Robert Bourassa sees this as an important step for Québec and vigorously defends the Accord.
Except that after the signature, it takes a vote of each of the parliaments of the provinces to ratify the text. The Agreement is torpedoed. Another failure: this promising agreement is buried.
A setback that will raise nationalist momentum in Québec. Bélanger-Campeau Commission on the Future of Québec, Allaire report which makes the PLQ almost sovereigntist. A lot of noise for nothing. It all ends in fishtail with the lame Charlottetown deal. It was submitted to a referendum in 1992. Answer: NO.
Jacques Parizeau took power in 1994 with a clear commitment: a referendum in his first year in office. He kept his word and formed a coalition, which I took part in. By a few percentage points, the majority said no. Another failure.
The aftermath of this referendum will not be happy times for the nationalists in Québec. The federal government has been taking a series of initiatives to put Québec back in its place. In particular, the unilateral law supposedly “on referendum clarity”.
Then came this long liberal reign [Mr. Dumont means the provincial liberals]. Fifteen years. Some might say years without failure. Indeed, when we ask nothing, we avoid the risk of being told NO. I especially interpret the fact that I can no longer ask for anything as the sad result of years of missing all our opportunities.
Glimmer in these years, there was nevertheless the recognition that Québec forms a nation which was initiated by the Harper government.
Legault’ success
This is François Legault’s great coup. In the first year of his mandate, he had his secularism law passed. After more than ten years of hesitation and studies on the topic. A strong gesture in terms of identity.
A solid majority supported it and the National Assembly voted for it. The opposite of failure. The end of the cycle. From a nationalism point of view, this is huge”.
End of Mr. Dumont’s text.
Third and finally, every story and every piece of history has more than one perspective…
Sometimes, people change their perspectives with time.
Regardless of the perspective on Québec’s aspiration to assert itself and ensure its sustainable (cultural, economic, political…) prosperity, Bambi would like to offer this beautiful and meaningful song, by Mr. Gilles Vigneault, to La Belle Province. It is in Québec where her beautiful Canadian adventure began, thirty years ago. It is in Québec where she left a large piece of her heart. Yes, she remains grateful, respectful, and… loyal in love.
