Spreading hate? Enzra Lavant and Jonathan Rosenthal debate

Should we have our political or religious views on a test in order to be allowed to have children in Canada?

Lawyers debate the seizure of two children from their home due to fears that their father, an alleged neo-Nazi, was filling their heads and marking their bodies with messages of hate.

CTV Newsnet

Origins of the swastika

Swastika     The derivation of the word

Swastika, Ontario

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski and John Jalsevac

WINNIPEG, July 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The bizarre story of a Winnipeg mom who had her children seized last March by Manitoba's Child and Family Services Ministry, after her daughter went to school with a swastika drawn on her arm, has become a focal point for the debate over how much say government should have in how parents raise their children.

Conservative commentators who believe that Canada's courts and governmental authorities are becoming dangerously overzealous in their interference in the affairs of private citizens are condemning the decision to remove the children from their home, despite their parents' public and unapologetic adherence to white supremacist philosophies.

Others have defended the decision, saying that the children were emotionally endangered by the nature of their parents' ideological affiliations.

Manitoba Child and Family Services snatched the children because of "concerns that the parents' conduct might endanger the emotional well-being of the children...and that the children may be at risk of harm due to the parents' behaviour and associations," according to an affidavit from a child welfare worker.

The affidavit also says "there were concerns regarding drug and alcohol use," although recent coverage of the case has put scant emphasis on these concerns.

The mother of the children told CTV last week that she is not a neo-nazi, despite her use of the swastika, and that she is simply proud of her European heritage.

"It's OK to be proud to be a native, it's OK to preach black power," she said, adding, "But when you're white and you're proud, it's wrong."

Manitoba Child and Family Services is attempting to gain permanent guardianship over the children.

On Friday, conservative commentator Ezra Levant sparred against Toronto area lawyer Jonathan Rosenthal in a heated CTV Newsnet debate on the issue.

Levant, who is becoming an increasingly well known figure in Canada, largely for his central role in seeking the eradication or radical restructuring of Canada's human rights commissions, argued that "having odious political views is neither a crime in itself, nor a legal reason to break up families."

Parents' rights to have and raise children as they wish, said Levant, trump the government's beliefs about what children should or should not be taught. "In Canada, everyone has the right to have children," he said, observing, "If we have a political test for the state to break up parents, no-one is safe."

Referring to the swastika drawn on the girl's arm, Levant agreed that it is a powerful symbol of an evil ideology. However, removing children from their home because their parents are alleged neo-nazis, he said, is equivalent to punishing the parents and children for a thought crime.

"[Child Services is] basically saying that there should be a political test now for whether or not you get to keep your children," he argued." You don't have to do anything to hurt them. You don't have to be a bad parent. But if you have the wrong political ideas, you can have your kids taken away as a punishment to you and them."

Rosenthal responded to Levant by arguing that, given that the swastika is a hate symbol that is associated with the massacre of millions of individuals, the children of parents' who allow them to go to school with a swastika on their arms are "in serious need of serious protection."

"A seven-year-old should not be wearing a universal sign of hatred anywhere," said Rosenthal. "And if the parents don't understand that, that's a very dangerous thing. They can have that view, but to put a swastika on a seven-year-old, and to let her go to school, if you don't think that's disgusting sir [Levant], you're very troubled."

Manitoba Child and Family Services guidelines allow child welfare workers to investigate any situation where there is concern for the safety or well-being of a child, including cases involving "religious or political practices...if those practices could be harmful to the child," said Nadine Delisle, communications co-ordinator for Family Services and Housing.

The heavy-handed tactics of various child welfare organizations, often directed at children from religious families, has been documented by LifeSiteNews over the years.

My Victoria - Where are your powers?

  Haste a un lado, Oh my amada!
  Tu no tienes autoridad
  Tu aguijon sera tu caida
  Mi victoria y tu vanidad


Current Mood:   (radical)      radical

Seven layer bars

For those who enjoy cookie bars when feeling like having a good snack, here is a recipe that will satisfy your cravings. These bars are delicious.


1. 1 cup of your favourite nuts (choped)
2. 1 1/4 cup of shredded coconut
3. 8 ounces (2 sticks) of unsalted butter or
     margarine (melted)
4. 3 1/2 cups graham cracker crumbs
5. 2 cups semi-sweet chocolate chips
6. 2 cups butterscotch chips (12 oz)
7. 1 14 oz. can of sweetened condensed milk
                                                  (Not evaporated milk)


1. Preheat oven (350º degrees Fahrenheit / 180º degrees Celsius)
2. Place melted butter over a 13x9 pan, making sure the sides of the
     pan are well coated.
3. Spreadmbs evenly over the pan. Then layer chocolate chips,
    butterscotch chips, and nuts over crumbs. Pour condensed milk
    over nuts and sprinkle the shredded coconut over condensed milk.
4. Bake in the center of the oven for about 25/30 minutes or until
     lightly golden and set, but not browned.


Rotate the pan once for even cooking.
When done remove it from oven and let it cool over a wire rack for 2 hours approximately.
Remove the bars from the pan and cut it into 2 by 3 inch bars.


Do black homepages save Energy. Is black green?

There is a lot of talk about the concept of saving energy by changing colour to websites and people has began to set black search sites as homepages.

Climate changes makes us wonder what is ahead for us, and people began recycling. We all should do something about it.

There are many custom search pages on the internet that claim that using a black homepage will save a lot of energy. Some of those sites attract a lot of visitors who start testing such "innovation". Many of those sites use Google's custom search engine:     http://www.google.com/coop/cse/
Blakcle is one of those sites using Google's custom search engine (I think Blackle sucks) and claims of millions of Watt hours saved. Other sites with a black background are Nowblack, Google blogspot, and Jabago.

To tell you the truth, black webpages do not save energy. Fact or fiction about the black websites saving energy, for some of us a black website looks more appealing. See what Google has to say about the mith of making the background color of your monitor screen black:

Black Google-Blackle may not save energy

If you wish to find the most efficient PCs available today, search for the words "EnergyStar 4.0 compliant."

Here is a list of some search engines with a dark side...

Nowblack                   http://nowblack.com/

Blackle                       http://www.blackle.com/

Google Blogspot           http://black-google.blogspot.com/

Jabago                        http://www.jabago.com/

Cuil                             http://www.cuil.com/

Darkoogle                   http://www.darkoogle.com/

Some search engines come in colour...

Greenle                 http://greenle.net/

Greyle                   http://www.greygle.com/

Browngle             http://browngle.com/

Pinkle                   http://pinkle.net/

And others are a bit sofisticated... Custom homepage. If you like this page you can buy me drink!

Custom homepage/

Visit The energy saving blog


Three free alternatives to pricey graphics software

Why spend big bucks on graphics software when you can get many, if not most, of the same features from freeware? Here are three mui-expensive graphics apps and their free counterparts:

Adobe IllustratorAvailable for Windows only, Creative Docs .NET (yeah, weird name) is a vector-based graphic design tool for creating illustrations, manuals, flow charts, icons, and the like. It offers advanced features like Bezier curves, styles, convert-to-curves, and curved-path text.

Adobe Photoshop  You’ve actually got two choices here: GIMP, which is available for all platforms, and Paint.NET, which is Windows-only. Both programs offer powerful, Photoshop-caliber image-editing tools, everything from layers to special effects.

Corel Draw Want to sketch, draw, paint, etc? In addition to an assortment of “digital brushes” including chalks, charcoals, and pencils, Artweaver offers the usual array of image-editing tools: crop, gradient-fill, transparency, layers, and so on. It also supports (and, in fact, recommends) tablet PCs for a more realistic drawing/painting feel.

I also have to include a shout-out to longtime favorite IrfanView, which is great for viewing images, making quick edits, and changing formats. Any free graphics apps you’d like to recommend? Hit the Comments and discuss your faves.