[The cuteness has worn off this fake]
Turning green used to mean that one had smoked too much pot. For almost ten years, Elizabeth Mays has beentrying to convince Canadian voters that she is the real /authentic green (as in environmental) champion.
The problem is that the “real” Liz Mays has steadily emerged and the “real” Liz Mays is a bunch less wholesome than she portrays herself. Mays has played “nice” in parliament and on two occasions was handed the parliamentary nice person of the year award. It would seem that much of that persona is little more than merchandising.
Two recent Mays has exhibited what may be her own intellectual wardrobe malfunction but is more probably a case of her own inner personality revealing itself. The cute little care-bear image that Mays wore like a badge of honor apparently is but a mask hiding a dark side that is about as popular as diarrhea in a hot tub.
At the annual National Press Club formal dinner meeting in Ottawa a few weeks ago, Mays found her way (somehow) to the podium and launched into some sort of rant extolling the wonderful individual named Omar Khadr. The rest of us know him all too well as a cold-blooded murderer and a self admitted jihadist. Troubling to hear this form our resident care-bear given that she immigrated here and apparently has not found her Canadian legs yet.
Bill S-7 (also known as the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act) is an expected push-back against tolerance for the exact actions that put Canadian soldier’s feet on the ground in Afghanistan. The subjugation of women, especially at th3e hands of Taliban represented something that was abhorrent to main-stream Canadians.
According to Mays, the over 40,000 Canadian Military personnel that rotated through 13 years of deployments in Afghanistan were in that country opposing something that Mays says is not a problem. The 158 dead Canadian forces troops that lost their lives in Afghanistan paid that price for something that Mays feels is much less a problem.
The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, according to Mays is but a “bumper sticker”. The Act bans marriage for anyone under 16 years of age, bans forced marriages and (among other things) blocks anyone in a polygamous relationship from entering Canada. Some “bumper sticker”!
Those that came to Canada to escape similar barbaric practice form any number of other countries certainly do not want those practices implemented in Canada and that something Mays is consuming is making her quite “green”.
Mays does not stop there. She made her thoughts known on the wearing of the niqab at Citizenship Ceremonies. Specifically, that rule had a great deal of common sense with it. The rule applied to the facial covering worn by “some” Islamic women. The rule enabled authorities conducting the Citizenship Ceremony to see who they were swearing in as Canadian citizens. True to form, Mays opposed that rule. It is “odd” that Mays does not find similar fault with passport photos and government photo I.D. such as driver’s licenses.
May’s position on the wearing on the niqab during Citizenship Ceremonies carries with it her underlying belief that Canadian Citizenship is a matter of “right” to anyone that decides to move into Canada (as she did). Citizenship, when granted to a person originating from any other place is certainly NOT a right. It is a gift or a privilege.
We are about to enter a period of intense campaigning leading up to a National election. It is a shame and a waste of money to permit an ill-informed individual like May’s to make a mockery of Canada, Canadians and Canadian values. If, as Mays claims that anti-terrorist legislation is of as much functional value as a bumper sticker, I would suggest that Elizabeth Mays’ significance to the Canadian political realm is the equivalent of a mud flap’s importance to horse power.
Is Elizabeth Mays misleading people? Is that nice/sweet care-bear persona little more than a cloak hiding indirect aggression towards the country in which she has found a home? Some may suggest that such behavior is a major disconnect between the public persona she projects and the inner thoughts that she holds. The three examples (above) paint picture that is not likely acceptable to most Canadians. For her to persist at tree hugging in order to sell other unwelcome values is unworthy of an elected person.
Copyright Thunderbird Rising 2015
The above article is copyrighted. You may use, copy or distribute this article conditional on attributing your source (Thunderbird Rising) and the author (Lloyd Fournier)