09.04.2015 07:36 AM

KCCCC Day 33: can a refugee crisis change the course of an election campaign?


  1. Curt says:

    Warren, I agree with you that the media have ignored this issue for two years. When they get together for their lattes it is all about politics rather than the more significant issues. I am not a war monger but in my opinion the ISIS organization should be distroyed. 99% of the common people in the world just want to live in peace and see their children grow and prosper.

    • marc says:

      Wrong! The media have not ignored this issue. It has been covered in depth in the msm since the uprising against Assad began. There is a certain fatigue that sets in with any prolonged conflict or crisis but the subject has never been ignored by the media, it has been ignored by the public. The opposition parties and various organizations working in the region were urging our government to step up humanitarian aid since the beginning of the conflict but were shut down.

      I think if you seek out the details of the conflict you’ll realize that the “destroy ISIS” sentiment being put forward since the photo was released is as much about vote pandering as it is about dealing with the real crisis. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for wiping ISIS off the face of the earth but that is a simplistic solution that won’t resolve the much more complex problem. Refugees were fleeing and people were dying long before ISIS was a household word.

      Finally the whole “which family applied” question is a red herring. Kurdi applied for one brother by way of a hand delivered letter directly from her MP to the Minister of Immigration and she heard nothing… not a word. Her intention was to also apply for the other brother but feeling it a hopeless cause she didn’t bother. They’re all family she was supporting and had hoped to bring over here. The fact remains that immigration and refugee support has been intentionally bottlenecked by this government.

      • DougM says:

        “The fact remains that immigration and refugee support has been intentionally bottlenecked by this government.”

        Immigration rates under the Harper government are (and have been for years) greater than the previous Martin and Chretien governments. Immigration from middle-eastern countries is currently higher than it has ever been. Today 20% of the population is foreign born. Canada’s annual immigration rate is the highest among the G8 nations.

        • Maps Onburt says:

          Right you are Doug, but that won’t stop people like Marc from “knowing” differently. Since Harper came to government, we’ve let in 2M new Canadians. That’s almost 1% of the population each and every year. Of course we’ve also seen criticisms from the opposition that we are letting in far too many. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I don’t agree with Warren’s Liberal bent, but he’s no hypocrite. He calls out silly moves on all sides. VERY rare in the pundit gallery these days.

      • Matt says:

        Canada has accepted more refugees per year under Harper than we did under Martin.

        And since 2003 we’ve accepted over 123,000, second only to the United States

        • marc says:

          Those are great talking points but not facts! Oh, by the way, Temporary Foreign Workers do not count as immigrants. Might as well count the tourists too.

  2. Christian says:

    Sadly Warren, I think you are right – People will move on. I’m not sure if technology is entirely to blame but we have become a society that has the attention span and memory retention of an average 2 year old.

  3. Brooke V says:

    Although I agree with you that something should have been done 2 years ago re the crisis/ISIS/Assad I think this may be a turning point in favor of Harper and the Conservatives. First if Mulcair does not kick his NDP Member out ( and asap ) it will appear that as the Leader he approves of lying. Add the fact that he will be seen using a dead young child for political gain and this will leave a horribly sour taste in Canadians mouths. Secondly it is red meat to Conservatives re the Media Bias angle ( and since no one has yet to apologize for the blame on the Govt Stories ) and will surely motivate Conservative supporters when they need a boost post long weekend sprint to Election Day. As long as Harper remains Prime Ministerial re the death of this Family he will gain from it. That is of course assuming no other big story comes along ( IE Wallin charged, major unemployment changes etc etc ).

  4. eric weiss says:

    Thank you for that. The reason I read you is that I admire your ability to call out hypocracy, including your own party. Not a Liberal (blue lib, red tory swing voter who voted NDP once) I feel it’s unfortunate that you did not run. Real leaders welcome dissenting opinion and you would have been a good voice in caucus.

    • Warren says:

      Thank you sir. Butts, Herle et al regard dissent as treason. No place for guys like me.

      • eric weiss says:

        Not telling the Emperor he doesn’t have any clothes at the detriment to your party or country is even more treasonous. Hopefully it will happen one day. You would be a great public servant.

      • Lou says:

        Repression of dissent is the hallmark of a certain government that Trudeau says he admires. Any surprise here? Also, “You don’t get to suddenly discover compassion in the in the middle of an election campaign. You either have it or you don’t,” Trudeau said Thursday morning in Montreal. Really Justin? The same applies to Hubris, modesty and gravitas.

      • lance mclean says:

        I agree, even though we can all be partisan at time, I think you would have made a fine MP. Perhaps it just shows that in the political parties of today there is not much room for reasonable discourse and critical analysis of that party’s positions. I think we need to really choode riding representation better (all parties). The calibre of people running these parties is shockingly low. I find it interesting that I would consider myself conservative but agree with Warren 90% of the time on his takes. Maybe we do need a true middle of the road party, the Liberals are not that anymore.

      • Maps Onburt says:

        Their loss Warren. Good guys always come out on top in the end.

  5. Kevin T. says:

    Unfortunately, in the Harpercon era of Canadian politics, both lying and reckless indifference to truth are just highly efficient opportunistic political weapons. They are being wielded by all parties now rather than by just one power-hungry ruthless one, and Canadian democracy is the lesser for it.

  6. BlueGritr says:

    Indeed, the crisis/ISIS/Assad most likely will be the turning point in favor of Harper and the Conservatives. Not enough to even come close to a majority, but enough for the Cons to eke out a win. What’s going on in that part of the world is horrid. Wishing Trudeau Pup will come out and say that he now agrees with SH: that these soulless, barbaric people must be crushed. Will he? Will the Liberal brain trust entertain such a reverse in strategy? Any thoughts? Because we all know that evil prevails when good people do nothing.

    • Scott says:

      Get serious Blue. Of course Trudeau would like to see them crushed, who wouldn’t. It’s all about effectiveness. Our efforts would be better served on the humanitarian side of things. Let’s leave the actual fighting to those better equipped for it.

      • Matt says:

        He’s not willing to do anything to stop those creating the refugee crisis.

        Don’t stop them = You can’t stop the refugee crisis.

      • BlueGritr says:

        Hey Scotty, then let’s have a conversation about how our efforts would be better served on the humanitarian side of things. Ideas? Only hearing crickets, Scotty. Enlightened, sophisticated guys like you must have some thoughts? Maybe one? Bring it.

      • Lance says:

        So Canada is “not equipped” for a combat role, eh? If that doesn’t mean ever, then when and under what circumstances does it? If we are “not equipped”, then why aren’t we, and why are we not making the effort to be? Anything else means that we leave the fighting and life risk-taking to other people while we give out blankets and a place to come to. Humanitarian aid is good, we SHOULD do that. However, there wouldn’t BE a humanitarian crisis if we stopped the ones causing it. That means killing them. We can’t do that if we are “not-equipped”.

        And yes, our paltry five CF-18s are a drop in the bucket. That doesn’t mean that we should not, cannot, or ouught not do more to fill that bucket.

        • lance mclean says:

          I agree , on one hand the opposition parties acknowledge that Canada’s contibution to the greenhouse gas problem is extremely small (<2% of world) but feel we should still act immedietly as it is our moral responsibility, even if we cannot really effect anything or really make a difference. But yet they can flip that arguement on its head when it comes to combat roles for Canada, "why contribute if we aren't the difference makers". Pathetic!!

  7. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Summary of Canada’s contributions in the region…


    ◾Humanitarian relief — $403.5 million;
    ◾Development projects — $230.7 million;
    ◾Security assistance — $67.2 million

    Hardly insignificant.

    • davie says:

      True, however, the word ‘commitment’ is used for all those numbers. I understand the refugee commitment has not yet been met. I don’t know whether or not the financial commitments have been met.

  8. Maps Onburt says:

    Great post Warren. One thing this has clearly shown to everyone is just how blatantly biased the CBC and Ottawa Citizen have become against the Conservatives. PM Harper has his faults but his best was on display yesterday. https://www.facebook.com/pmharper/videos/10153491497992110/

  9. Mitch says:

    “that these soulless, barbaric people must be crushed”

    How? More bombing? We have been bombing the area since 1991. How many more bombs will it take? A land invasion? How well did the last military invasion of the region turn out?

    What specifically is your plan and how many Canadian soldiers and how much money are you willing to sacrifice to see it happen?

    • Brooke V says:

      Actually Mitch the last invasion was a success in that it was bringing stability to the region ( Iraq ), however when Obama pulled out to early that left a power vacuum that ISIS exploited ( and yes Obama did run on doing this and was elected ). Had a decent sized force been left behind what has happened to Iraq would have been avoided ( again assuming they had proper engagement rules ). I do acknowledge though that with Syria where this all started Obama and his utter failure to hold Assad accountable militarily ( red line ) thats what lead to where we are today. One only has to compare what has been done to date ( since Obama took office ) to what Nato accomplished under Clinton in Eastern Europe as an example of proper use of military power ( approx 17 times more air strikes to date ).

      • Mitch says:

        You are living in an alternate reality. The invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the last 40 years and ISIS would not exist if it had not happened. How long were the US supposed to keep troops in the area? 15 years? 20? 25?

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Nice cop out. You want to tell me how giving blankets would have helped the Polish Jews in Kraków in 1939? Or let’s go with something a little more recent shall we – say Rwanda? General Dallairre wasn’t asking for blankets to help the Tutsi now was he? Sometimes you have to commit troops to stop atrocities. UN peacekeepers are only effective when both sides agree they should be there.

      • Mitch says:

        You are attacking me and changing the subject rather than responding to the question I posed. Want to try again?

        What specifically is your plan and how many Canadian soldiers and how much money are you willing to sacrifice to see it happen? Why do you think it will work when it has been a failure for the last 12 years?

        • Maps Onburt says:

          Mitch, show me where I am “attacking” you or even changing the subject. My points stand but nice try. To answer your second question, it’s going to take a lot more than just Canada to defeat ISIS but we must be a part of it and shouldn’t be standing on the sidelines as you seem to suggest. The strategy at the moment is to stop their advances (mostly successful ) and contain them canada is doing what we can (training and keeping them from advancing). Not advocating for more.

  10. eric weiss says:

    Voters are more concerned with issues that effect us personally. Sure we’re horrified b what happened. We talk about making changes to our immigration policy and say all the things we should say and comment on how tragic it is. Is it going to change voter preferences and galvanize the electorate to rise up and demand something be done en masse? Nope. By Oct 19, it won’t even be on anyone’s radar. That’s a terrible thing, but it’s human nature. In the middle of recession, the economy trumps all for the majority of people.

  11. bobbie says:

    Just watched Mulcair’s presser from Brossard QC where he effectively and once again tossed our fighting men and women under the NDP bus. Isn’t the role of a PM supposed to support our troops?

    Oh and Justin, is still playing “winter coat” emotional politics in North York this morning. Group hug and everything will be just fine. That will work for some. Z7W

    You sir are bang-on.

  12. Matt says:

    Has Donnelly made any statement since Time blew a massive hole in his bullshi narrative?

    Has the NDP been asked about one of their candidates grave dancing on a three year old to try and smear the government for political gain?


    By the way, the CBC is STILL TRYING to insinuate it was Alan’s family she was trying to sponsor:

    “Family sought refuge in Canada

    What Canada didn’t do, apparently, is much of anything to assist the Kurdi family to get to Canada, where Alan Kurdi’s aunt, Tima Kurdi, was trying to sponsor them.

    She told reporters that her brother’s family wanted to come to this country. She’d even written a letter to Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, asking for help. The letter was delivered to Alexander, in person, by New Democrat Fin Donnelly, her MP.”


      • Matt says:

        Uh, you just proved my point.

        “When Tima Kurdi tried to sponsor her brother Mohammed Kurdi and his family to come to Canada as refugees, she found herself mired in a Catch-22 of red tape and bureaucratize.
        In a pleading letter obtained by the Star dated March 17, Kurdi begged Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander to allow them (and not her other brother Abdullah, the father of the two drowned Syrian boys) to come to Canada as refugees.”

        The letter clearly states “bringing my brother” NOT BROTHERS.

        Given Mohammad was the only one of her brothers to apply, she was clearly referring to him in the letter, not Alan’s father.

        • Christian says:

          You missed this bit:

          “The letter was delivered by NDP MP Fin Donnelly.

          While the brother is not named in the letter, an official in Donnelly’s office confirmed that Kurdi specified in an attachment to the letter that she and her family were sponsoring Mohammed and his family, but that the attachment does go over the family histories of both Mohammed and Abdullah.”

          Admittedly, its not clean and I’m not trying to absolve the NDP (at BEST they mislead). But at the very least they have stated it was for her other brother but that Abdullah was mentioned and would have likely been subject to a separate application if the family had gotten anywhere with Mohammed. Anyway, as Warren has pointed out NOBODY looks good on this. The best thing we can all collectively do now is not use selective points, out of context commentary and reporting etc., as YOU have done, in order to exploit cheap political points.

          • Matt says:

            Uh, nobody is denying Donnelly delivered the letter to Alexander.

            This issue is Donnelly who at worst lied about the letters content being about the dead boys immediate family, that Canada rejected their application when in reality no application was made, or at best allowed media from around the world to assume it was about the dead boys immediate family without moving to correct their stories even after the truth was revealed.

    • bobbie says:

      Both the CBC and CTV in fact are still trying hard to spin this…..to their shame IMO.

    • Scott says:

      What don’t you get about the fact that it was pointless for her to apply for the one brothers family after getting the bums rush on the other brothers family.

      • Matt says:

        What don’t you get.

        Media STILL trying to claim Alan’s family were trying to come to Canada. Media STILL trying to claim Donnelly gave letter to Alexander regarding Alan’s family. It was NOT about Alan’s family. It was about the family of Alan’s uncle Mohammad. Given the bum’s rush? Mohammad application was not rejected. It was sent back looking for more information.

        You have turned into one of those people you call “conbots” you profess to despise.

  13. Domenico says:

    At the end of the day this helps the Liberals. They have been advocating for letting in more (25,000) Syrian refugees since April (if memory serves). They weren’t made to look bad yesterday but rightly or wrongly both the NDP and Cons were. NDP looked like liars and Cons looked like the were dragging their heels on refugees.

    I still am not sure how bombing ISIS is supposed to help a refugee crisis. Bombing hasn’t done much so far. Ground war anyone? You help Hezbollah get rid of ISIS, and Syria, Iraq and Libya return to a place where people want to live?


    • Matt says:

      Uh, because many of these refugees are fleeing advancing ISIS forces?

      This family fled Kobani, an area of Syria under ISIS control and constant fighting between ISIS and Kurdish militia.

      • Domenico says:

        And how best to help them? Bombing ISIS doesn’t seem to be working. Launch a ground war? Fight with Hezbollah? It seems to me that providing aid to the refugees is the best of a series of bad options.

        • Matt says:

          It was reported this afternoon Kurdish forces, with the assistance of western bombing, have pushed ISIS out of Kobani. Apparently happened end of June/Beginning of July.

          • Domenico says:

            I find it strange and unfortunate that the Kurds, the one group in that five sided war that is the least objectionable, is being bombed by our NATO ally Turkey.

  14. Liam Young says:

    Last I looked the person in charge of immigration was a Conservative, not an NDPer. But it’s ok … when the NDP are in charge, they will do something instead of pointing fingers.

    • Lance says:

      Yeah…………..something. How about telling us what that is NOW? Or what they will do in a whole one month if they become the new government?

      No? Yeah, that is right, keep talking.

  15. mrburnsns says:

    I agree that the NDP is lying by omission – they should have said that there was a direct link between the failure to respond to the letter (which outlined the difficulties in getting a UNHCR document). Any response to that letter – “we are looking into the difficulties around UNHCR documentation in Turkey” or a basic offer of assistance would have likely stopped the other brother’s family from trying to leave Turkey. Would have been classier for the NDP to be as truthful as possible, but by remaining silent I think they’ve successfully inflicted a lot of political damage on the Tories.

    It’s a lot like the Michael Bryant case – his reputation as a jerk caused a lot of people to think he was guilty, but he was an innocent man trapped in a bad situation. In this case, the Tories continued harsh treatment of foreigners, immigrants, and refugees to score points with their base makes a direct link to this poor child’s death clear for many people, even though the truth is much more complex.

  16. DougM says:

    Talk talk talk. Let’s do something about this! We don’t need to wait for the politicians. Not everyone can sponsor a refugee from Syria, but pretty much everyone (at least those reading this) can spare 5 bucks, or 10, 50 or $100 etc. According to the United Church (I’m not affiliated) it costs $6000 to get a sponsorship for a family of 4 going with an additional $20,000 in expenses their first year.


    So my question is, is there one org we can donate to where we know that money will go towards sponsoring Syrian refugees? Can we get something going here? Point me at the right org and I will donate today, as I’m sure most of the readers here will.

    • Matt says:

      Red Cross and Red Cresent have Syrian specific donation links on their site.

      The are on the ground in countries neighbouring Syria helping the refugees.

      • DougM says:

        Yes I’ve seen those, thank you. But they help refugees in place. I’m talking about donating to an org that will use that money directly to sponsor refugees to come to Canada. Anyone know of such an org? Surely the United Church can’t be the only one?

  17. UFP Ambassador says:

    Story has already been memory-holed by The Star. And the one last article about their trip back to Syria for the funeral won’t allow comments. Great job MSM. Great job.
    (btw, if they were actually fleeing in terror how did they make that trip back for the funerals so easily?)

  18. doconnor says:

    The facts are pretty bad. Only about 1000 out of a “goal” of 10,000 refugees this year, almost all of then privately sponsored.


  19. Matt says:

    Canadians divided on how to help refugees – poll.


    Fifty-four per cent of respondents said the government should take in more refugees, 63 per cent said individuals and community groups should sponsor more refugees, and 76 per cent said Canada should send professionals, such as doctors or soldiers, to help the migrants. Twenty-three per cent said the country should do nothing.

    “I think what you see is a country that’s very divided on this issue more than public outcry may have anticipated,” said Shachi Kurl, senior vice-president of the Angus Reid Institute. While most Canadians agree on the need to do something, she said, there is no consensus about what specifically should be done.”

  20. ottlib says:

    A couple of thoughts.

    First, to all of those quoting facts about the Conservative government’s actions on the refugee crisis and the fact the NDP MP was mistaken at best or outright lied at worst, you are wasting your time.

    Politics is a game where facts often take a backseat to perception. That is a simple reality and I doubt it will be different this time.

    So taking a look at events of the past few days. A picture of a drowned boy seared the eyeballs of everybody who picked up a paper or looked at the news. Then Chris Alexander fouled the bed on the same day (this campaign’s beer and popcorn moment perhaps?). Then it was revealed the next morning that the government had rejected the very family of the boy in the picture as refugees to this country giving the impression that the Canadian government could have directly prevented the tragedy. The fact the last point is completely erroneous will be lost on most people. The first impression of this event, created in that first 24 hours, is probably the one that will stick for most. It is unfortunate considering the facts that have been revealed since but that is the way it is.

    Second, no party in this election will be helped by the last few days.

    This event will, however, hurt the Conservatives. Not just because of the event itself, although it does not put them in the most positive of light, but because this is just one more negative event in what has been a series of negative events sideswiping their campaign.

    The campaign is 33 days old and the Conservative message has been stomped on by events for about 28 of those days. The Duffy trial dogged them for three weeks. It ended and gave them some hope that they might be able to get on track until it was confirmed that Canada had been in a recession, a direct blow to their assertions of being good economic managers. (Yes, yes, not the Conservatives fault. It was all out of their control.) Then the events of the past couple of days.

    Can the Conservative campaign recover? Perhaps, but it is a rarity in politics for political parties that have their message sidetracked by negative events for almost half an election campaign to come back and win and I would argue that for each day that the Conservatives are dogged by these events their odds decrease that much more.

    • davie says:

      I usually support NDP, though, in my riding, I am looking Green as well.
      At the beginning of this campaign I saw on my tv the main leaders at various events, and it looked to me as if JT was quite good in live crowds. At the time, Conservatives and NDP were doing okay in polls and Liberals were some distance behind. I thought that in a long campaign, that JT’s ease and skill with live events would help the Liberals.
      I also though this election was the pro Harper versus the anti Harper voters, and that the latter was trying to decide just where to best put their votes.
      As the campaign has gone on, Conservatives seem to be constantly reacting to events that hurt them, some, of their own making. The controlled leader events are a drawback for them…sort of like grandparents forcing everyone to watch little Johnny sing and dance for everyone.
      The NDP leader has done okay, articulate and hanging in there, looking like a possible alternative.
      But I keep noticing the Liberal poll numbers creeping up, and I think that a lot of the gain is due to JT’s performance in campaigning. As the campaign slips into its 2nd half, I can see a chance of the Liberals doing well enough in polls that anti Harper voters begin moving from the NDP to the Liberals. If that shift begins at the right time (momentum) I think the Liberals can give us all a real surprise.

    • KBab says:

      Yes, the Cons are being slain by their own swords, again and again.

      As they implode further expect some explosions. Cults are not rational.

  21. Lance says:

    It is unfortunate considering the facts that have been revealed since but that is the way it is.

    So that is it then; just outright BULLSHIT and smear and do NOTHING to stop the attack when the truth is revealed and the perpetrator is caught out in the open, and if it sticks oh well who gives a fuck, and if it doesn’t who gives a fuck anyway? Because “that is the way it is”!?

    If voters buy that, then I’m sorry, they ARE stupid. SMH

  22. JamesSmith says:

    Sorry Warren, you are wrong on this one. I’m no dipper, and I voted against Fin Donnelly when I lived in New Westminster, but he did not lie.

    Yes, Chris Alexander excuses himself and his government saying that the Kurdi’s family did not actually have a refugee file with Canada. Nevertheless, Kurdi’s aunt sought to sponsor both of her brothers’ families, and Canadian sponsorship rules limited her to just one of the families.

    Aylan Kurdi’s aunt chose to try to sponsor her older brother – a choice that was perhaps a macabre “happy coincidence” for Minister Alexander.

    But ultimately, the older brother’s family was rejected by Canada anyway. What’s more, Alexander was personally handed the file by Donnelly, which mentioned the urgent need of both families. Alexander ignored the file.

    Let’s not get bound up in technicalities.

  23. Derek Pearce says:

    I’ve been thinking this over today re fighting ISIS. It seems to me that in order to truly defeat ISIL, a land invasion would be needed. While it’s certainly true that bombing can be marginally effective it mostly amounts to playing whack-a-mole. No western nation wants to have to go in and occupy a middle eastern country and try to put down an insurgency for 30+ years.

    So while it feels good and does some interruptive damage to bomb, in a practical sense it is better to focus on humanitarian aid if the goal is to help refugees. I’m not sure what the goal of this bombing campaign is other than to be seen to be tough against what is a disgusting barbaric enemy. The symbolism of that is important no doubt, but again, in a practical sense does less in terms of actually helping the victims. I guess what I’m saying is I support the bombing campaign if we can acknowledge it’s limited effectiveness and not put in on the same level of practical usefulness as helping the refugees. The fact that there are so many refugees is itself proof of this.

  24. Kev says:

    Fun fact 1: politicians can talk about more than one thing.

    Fun fact 2: they have to.

  25. Joe says:

    Our little church has sponsored refugees in the past from east Asia, east Europe, Africa etc. It can be a protracted exercise and persistence pays dividends. However I always felt that no true refugee should be able to jump the queue by having an in with the minister. From my perspective anyone who tries to make special appeal to the minister should be dropped to the end of the line. I much prefer to have the officials do what they do and accept or reject as they see fit without political interference. A note of humour. We heard of a young couple from east Europe that we decided we would sponsor. We did all the paper work and went back several times to fill in the blanks. However our valiant efforts were for naught, The couple decided ther country needed them more than Canada and so they stayed where they were. We went on to sponsor someone else.

  26. Derek Pearce says:

    Well I must say I did not read Ibbitson’s column until just now, don’t I feel like a smarty pants:


    The military guy quoted seems to think bombing is more than effective than I do, I still think it’s debatable…

  27. JonT says:

    I don’t want any of the Syrian refugees in Canada, and I believe a majority of voting Canadians agree with me. Canada has ~1 million muslims now and that’s just about enough.

    Let other ME muslim countries take them in and support them with their oil wealth instead of shipping them over to Canada. If any country should be taking in these unfortunates it should be Obama’s USA because the USA invaded Iraq and destabilized the entire region and created the ISIS terrorists in the ME by prematurely withdrawing from Iraq and creating a power vacuum there. I hear nothing from Obama, and I bet Trump says no too. So why us?

    Canada had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion so why should we be obliged to take in thousands of these immigrants? We are bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria in an attempt to stop their murderous activities that are causing the flight from war zones.

    Syrian Assad is also trying to survive the onslaught of ISIS and fighting Shia muslims in his country and this creates these Shia-ISIS refugees. It’s Shia-Sunni sectarian warfare and the muslims must settle their religious differences and not send us their problems.

    Muslims no more, so stop the guilt trip propaganda because it’s turning the silent majority of Canadians towards the Harper Conservatives!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.