Economists HATE This. Eliminate Poverty With This One Weird Trick: The $9000 Minimum Wage!

On Tuesday, Ontario’s provincial government, undeterred by the province’s title-claim to the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower (one-third the population of California, and twice the debt!), raised its minimum wage to a whopping $15 per hour.

Left-leaning lemmings were instantly filled with vim and vigour, proclaiming the minimum wage hike a social justice victory.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) led with, “How the Liberals went from cool to hot on $15 minimum wage.” Abandoning business decay as cause for concern, CBC ran another headline, “Ontario’s minimum wage raise a ‘small business killer,’ say critics, but for many it means feeling ‘human’.”

Reveling in hysteria and self-dramatization, liberals immediately decried the new law’s detractors as being cold-hearted and uncaring toward “working class families”. As the CBC’s own headline suggests, if you oppose the government-mandated minimum wage, you oppose people “feeling human.”

Here, in no particular order, are a list of reasons Canada’s Liberal government is making a terrible mistake by raising the minimum wage.

A Minimum Wage Hike Prices Low Skilled Workers Out of the Job Market

I got my first job in the summer of 2010. I was 17 years old, working as a lifeguard earning a generous (personally, I was very happy with it) $14 per hour.

At the time, the minimum wage was around $10 per hour.

I was making close to 50% over the minimum because prior to landing the job, I’d spent more summers than I can recall taking swimming lessons, as well as taking and completing first aid and lifeguarding courses.

What do you think would happen if the bare minimum you’re legally allowed to pay an employee jumps up to $15?

Naturally, lifeguards will also need a sizeable raise to maintain an incentive for people to expend the time and money on the required training. There’d be no reason to go through the trouble of becoming a lifeguard if you’re paid the same wage as a grocery store employee, who requires no prerequisite training, and has far less responsibilities.

This also means that companies employing lifeguards will prioritize hiring and keeping people with experience. This logic applies to jobs across the board. What you’ve effectively done is price low-skilled and inexperienced workers entirely out of the labor force. Their new “minimum wage” is now zero.

Youth unemployment in Ontario is higher than the national average. A recently published government jobs report showed that despite a slight January decline in national unemployment (5,700 less persons working than January of 2016), youth unemployment in Ontario was nearly 3 times harder hit (18,900 persons between 18 and 24 working in February of 2017 than in February of 2016). The Liberal government has a genius plan to address this. Make hiring unskilled, inexperienced young people more expensive!

Read More >>

‘LAWS RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH’ ARE OUR STRENGTH

Canada’s Liberal Party is currently spearheading Motion 103 (M-103) through Parliament. Set for debate in April, the motion calls on the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear” and “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The motion also calls for the establishment of a governmental committee to  “undertake a study on how the government could reduce or eliminate systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”

As opposed to a bill (or law), M-103 is a motion. Its purpose is to “raise awareness,” drawing attention to an issue (extolling their own virtue is the Liberal Party’s raison d’être, after all). Although M-103’s passage wouldn’t change Canada’s legal system, the motion is intended to become a progenitor or future legislation.

Why do we need new motions or laws to combat “Islamophobia”? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) and the Criminal Code of Canada already protect Muslims and other religious groups. The motion ostensibly seeks to combat “systemic racism against Muslims”, despite zero evidence that Canadian laws systemically target Muslims. And if there was evidence, why doesn’t Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just change the law? He runs the government.

Moreover, “Islamophobia” is an elusively defined term. The proposed motion fails to explain what Islamophobia actually is. “Islam,” after all, is a religion. Would criticizing its tenets be considered a “phobia”?

Late last year, Liberals amended Canada’s Human Rights Act, again adding vaguely-defined terms to the CCRF: “gender expression” and “gender identity.” In effect, it became a human rights violation to refer to a biological male as a “he,” insofar as he self-identified as a woman. Motion-103 is drafted along the same lines.

Anti-Semitism – which is far more prevalent in Canada than Islamophobia – is omitted in toto. According to 2015 police data, Jews were the identified group most targeted by hate crimes in Canada, with the LGBTQ community coming in second.

The CBC – which recently published an editorial entitled, “Anti-Islamophobia motion offers a chance to take a stand against hatred. Why quibble over semantics?” –  is yet to print one (just one!) article on the Muslim Imam in Quebec delivering a sermon in which he prayed for the annihilationof the “accursed” Jews.

And if Quebecois Imams don’t make the CBC’s cut for required reporting, a Toronto Mosque, Masjid Toronto, has a story ripe for the picking. An Imam was caught on video calling for the extermination of the Jews, saying, “O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!”

Recently at Toronto’s Ryerson University, the Muslim Students’ Association and Students for Justice in Palestine Jewish Persecution organized a joint protest, blocking a motion commemorating Holocaust Education Week.

But not to worry, Trudeau has a foolproof plan to combat anti-Semitism via a rapid increase of Muslim refugee admissions to Canada.

Read More >>

Rebuttal to UToronto Student Newspaper’s Defense of Suppressing Free Speech

Less than a month after anarchists, communists, and a bevy of other perpetually useless members of society shut down a speech at the University of Toronto, the school’s student newspaper, The Varsity, published a column titled “Bigotry bears no right to a platform”.

The author, Adina Heisler, a second-year gender studies major, writes,

Speakers at the event included [Jordan] Peterson, Psychology Professor who has been called transphobic by some students on campus following his Professor against political correctness YouTube lecture series…

Remember. The first rule of writing an editorial that justifies – better yet encourages – forcefully shutting down public speakers with whom you disagree politically, is to avoid fairly characterizing your opponent at all costs. Don’t bother watching Jordan Peterson’s videos, providing their links, and highlighting the exact quotes which suggest he’s a bigot, unworthy of speaking at the university that employs him. Just go ahead and write it. Be sure to back up this already-robust accusation with “has been called”.

Heisler continues:

According to protester and community activist Qaiser Ali, the protesters objected to “the fact that the university has both allowed and sanctioned an alt-right, neo-fascist hate conference starring Ezra Levant.”

Qaiser Ali – as reported by The Varsitywas one of the protesters who helped shut the event down, screaming “F-Trump, and F-white supremacy”. The only person Heisler’s interviewed in her entire editorial on why it’s ok to forcefully shut down a speech at a public university is one of the people who actually shut down a speech at a public university.

Heisler claims that she contacted Ezra Levant for comment on the article to no avail. However, I spoke to Ezra myself. He told me that nobody by the name Adina Heisler from The Varsity reached out to him.

Going forward, the author paints a truly Orwellian portrait, writing,

The protesters are correct in saying that the speakers should not have been permitted to have this platform in the first place…

…whether or not a speaker should be allowed to have space on campus cannot necessarily be boiled down to a left-versus-right issue. There are a number of reasons why we might object to having certain types of events on campus.

For example, it was completely unacceptable when Ken O’Keefe, a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier, was given a space to speak on campus in June 2016, because he was propagating blatantly false anti-Semitic views.

That last part is actually correct. Ken O’Keefe is a Marxist Holocaust denier who was invited to speak at the university. His speech, however, was somehow not interrupted by the same people who felt Ezra Levant was about to pull out a sword and sacrifice a transgender Syrian refugee he had locked up in a cage somewhere.

Read More >>

Back in the USSR. You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are, Boy

On Saturday, left-wing protesters abruptly shut down a University of Toronto (UofT) lecture hosted by Generation Screwed and Students in Support of Free Speech. After screaming “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA”, the liberal activists proceeded to pull the university fire alarm, forcing everyone out of the building.

The panel had several speakers, including Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant and University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson – who rose to infamy in 2016 after sparking liberal hysteria, suggesting that there are fewer genders than Baskin Robbins ice cream flavors. The topic of discussion was fiscal responsibility and free speech – it was also held in Canada, raising the question why on Earth the protesters would chant “Trump” or “USA”.

This deliberate disruption by the social justice cabal comes less than a week after college campus liberals in the United States tried shutting down Rebel Media commentator Gavin McInnes in New York University. Gavin was dismayed to discover that “tolerance” apparently comes packaged as pepper-spray, as he was full-on assaulted by the “protesters”.

Adding insult to injury, a woman claiming to be an NYU professor began berating police officers ASKING THEM TO ASSAULT Gavin McInnes. Remember when the left suggested police brutality was a bad thing?

The NYU speech debacle was just mere days after California communist rioters shut down Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley. As reported by Tucker Carlson, people in black masks began hurling rocks at the building Yiannopoulos was scheduled to appear in. The social justice AntiFa intifada set the campus ablaze, forcing the Conservative commentator into immediate evacuation.

If you’re thinking Milo Yiannopoulos being an openly gay immigrant, who boasts about sleeping with black men would in any way preclude him from being a “xenophobic racist homophobe”… Don’t forget, he’s a right-wing Trump supporter.

And we’re not done yet! Just one week ago, Marquette University’s program assistant for the Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies was caught attempting to sabotage an upcoming lecture by Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro, rounding up reams of students to protest the event.

Over the past decade, political violence has been increasingly normalized on the far-left. We’ve come to a point where forcefully shutting down events is no longer some offshoot occurrence when a professional provocateur like Pam Geller is invited to speak and draw Mohamed cartoons with crayon.

Today, it’s practically leftist dogma. Try finding me one notable conservative speaker who’s successfully been able to deliver a speech on a college campus without security having to show up. Just one.

It’s about time we stop referring to these acts as protests. They’re not protests. You can read Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of what protests are here (before liberals have it banned).

Protesters didn’t pull the fire alarm on Ezra Levant, start a fire at Milo Yiannopoulos’s venue or pepper-spray Gavin McInnes (all in the last seven days!). Soviet-style fascists did.

Ironically, the social justice juggernaut flavor-of-the-month label is “AntiFa”, an abbreviation of “anti-fascism”.

When you’re dressed in black, with a mask covering your face and are violently seeking to shut down speech, you can scream “I’m anti-fascist!” as much as you want. Despite what your fervid imagination would have you believe, you’re still the fascist.

Whether it’s screaming “fascist KKK” like a petulant child, pulling fire alarms, starting actual fires or pepper-spraying people – which apparently is justified because they’re Nazis! – the far-left has somehow convinced itself they’re Seal Team 6 tasked with taking out Bin Laden anytime a conservative shows up to campus.

Read More >>

A Complete Timeline of Race Relations Under Obama

President Barack Obama marketed himself to the American people as penicillin to the nation’s racial woes. A vote for Obama was a vote for unity! How could you vote against that?

And so, a self-serving slice of the electorate indulged their virtuous exigencies, casting their ballot for what they perceived to be “something bigger.” Obama’s gleeful cry for “hope and change.”

Prior to the Obama presidency, President George W. Bush united Americans as… Americans through 9/11. He kept us safe, and unapologetically defended our common values of freedom and self-governance. But according to our national media, race relations prior to Obama’s presidency were like our healthcare system. Worse than Zimbabwe’s.

How successful was President Obama in mending these supposedly broken bonds? Here’s a comprehensive timeline of all the racial healing in the past eight years.

President Obama’s first headline hobnob with race-in-America dates back to the early days of his presidency. In 2009, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrived home to find his front door lock jammed. He opted to force his way in through the back door. Worried neighbors weren’t sure what was happening, and in good faith alerted the police.

Upon arrival, the officers – one of whom was black – asked Gates for ID, to which Gates then infuriatingly exploded, accusing the officers of racial profiling. “This is what it means to be black in America! … Do you even know how many graduate degrees I have! Do you know who you’re dealing with here!? … I’m a professor at Harvard. CAN YOU EVEN SPELL HARVARD?”

The befuddled, browbeaten officer arrested Gates on charges of disorderly conduct for his shrieking tirade.

The newly elected President disregarded the facts, kicking off what would be a long 8 years of poisonous rhetoric aimed at law enforcement. Joining the Cambridge coterie in haranguing the white working-class officer, Obama said: “he acted stupidly.”

Fast forward three years, and the glare of the national spotlight is on Sanford, Florida. In February of 2012, Hispanic-American George Zimmerman – leader of his community’s neighborhood watch – saw a young black man, Trayvon Martin, lurking around his community. Zimmerman called the police, reporting that the man appeared to be on drugs (autopsy confirmed this) and was urinating in front of a house.

After being instructed not to pursue the suspect, Zimmerman hung up. The initial confrontation between the two remains a mystery. However, all the available evidence aligned with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him, knocking him to the ground. Jumping on top of him, Martin allegedly began beating Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. Zimmerman subsequently reached for his gun, and shot Martin, killing him.

America’s racial-healer-in-chief Barack Obama responded to the incident, saying “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Busy acting as the pillars for Obama’s skewed racial narrative, the media failed to ask why exactly the President’s son would be high, lurking around neighborhoods and beating heads onto pavements.

When Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges, riots broke out across the country. Police cars were smashed and stomped on; windows were broken. A random white guy was robbed, the assailants yelling “this is for Trayvon!”

In November 2013, police officers shot and killed 16-year-old black teenager Kimani Gray in Brooklyn, New York. After observing suspicious behavior, the officers approached Gray, and he responded by drawing a firearm, pointing it squarely at the officers. (Not a good idea).

Despite the damning evidence that the officers were fully justified in shooting the suspect, riots ensued. Between 60 and 100 people took to the streets looting shops and smashing windows, allegedly chanting “NYPD, KKK, how many kids did you kill today”. Really all the hallmarks of a post-racial Obama America.

Read More >>

Here are 5 New Year’s Resolutions that Leftists Should Live By in 2017

Note: This column was co-written with Elliott Hamilton

Like it or not, we do have to share the country with Democrats. Sure, there’s been talk of California seceding from the Union–and reading strange headlines like “California Democrats legalize child prostitution” you almost feel inclined to push them out. But the fact is, for all their preening over transgender bathrooms and gluten-free goodness, deep down, leftists know that Whole Foods can’t supplant aircraft carriers, and they need God-fearing men with scary guns to secure their freedoms.

So here a list of New Year’s Resolutions for our friends on the other side of the aisle – the self-proclaimed tolerant – to make them more… tolerable. Who knows, follow these, and you may yet win elections.

  1. Tell Lena Dunham to go away.

Just one question: Which aspect of Lena Dunham’s persona did Hillary Clinton perceive as an asset to her campaign?

Was it the fact that she fabricated a story about being raped by a college Republican? Or perhaps how she described sexually abusing her own sister in the pages of her memoir? Maybe Hillary just wanted another multi-millionaire celebrity who revels in self-victimization to reach out to working-class Americans in the rust belt?

This was said after the election, but it’s an actual, direct quote from Lena Dunham: “…I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”

Lena Dunham didn’t win Hillary a single voter (including Lena Dunham herself who hilariously didn’t vote) who wasn’t already a lifelong Democrat. Her blunt moral delinquency was a bigger liability to the Clinton campaign than pneumonia.

Juxtapose these two headlines from CNN.

October 29, 2016: Lena Dunham to campaign for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina

November 9, 2016: How Trump Won

  1. Don’t overuse intersectionality. Gendering glaciers makes you sound out of touch with reality.

It seems very easy to claim that various groups of people are being oppressed by shadowy figures and that everything bad in this world is connected by some evil masculine entity maliciously known as “the patriarchy.” However, when you start claiming that environmental issues can be connected to sexism, you start running down a rabbit hole that would make Alice’s journey seem like a walk in the park. There are ways to address issues of racism and sexism in this country, but there’s a better chance that pigs will fly rocket ships to Pluto than that someone will find legitimate evidence to back a theory that attempts to link the two.

Read More >>

Welcome to Canada, Where Truth is a Human Rights Violation

In late 2016, Canada’s Liberal government officially passed legislation amending its Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to include perceived transgressions against transgender individuals. The bill passed with no recorded votes — meaning the publicly elected legislators passed it via secret ballot. The bill’s implications were largely lost in the news cycle amidst the heated US presidential election.

In summary, Bill C-16 amends the CHRA, adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Going further, the bill also amends the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) by extending protections against ‘hate propagada” to individuals who distinguish themselves by “gender identity” or “gender expression”

The bill can be read here in its entirety.

After actually reading it, you will notice that the bill does not even attempt to define “gender identity” or “gender expression.” Basically the Canadian version of, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Liberal Member of Parliament Jody Wilson–Raybould originally introduced the bill back in May. She elaborated on its vagaries:

“Gender identity is a person’s internal and individual experience of their gender. It is the deeply-felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum.”

Well, it’s comforting to know that the governing Liberal Party is amending the CCC based on people’s “internal feelings.” I suddenly feel like I fit into the lowest income tax bracket. Will that be okay, Canada Revenue Agency?

Raybould continued her elaboration on gender:

“Conversely, gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is the external and outward presentation of gender through aspects such as dress, hair, make-up, body language, and voice.”

As made clear by its author, Bill C-16 legally recognizes that one’s outfit and hairstyle supersede one’s biology as defining characteristics of gender. It’s a human rights violation to argue that a man – with all male parts – in a wig and dress is still a man. Apparently, the only thing that sets women apart from men is a ten-dollar Walmart shopping list.

Read More >>