Well! Now I’m relieved again, but for a different reason. Something I didn’t think would ever happen. On the weekend, 34 North American imams and Islamic leaders issued a fatwa condemning honour killings.

Whoa. Apparently, I’m not the only one surprised by the event – our news story called the fatwa a “rare move” and a “bold step”. The point of it is to remind Muslims that “honour killings, domestic violence and misogyny are un-Islamic actions and crimes in Islam. These crimes are major sins in Islam punishable by the court of law and almighty Allah.”

After the events of September 11, 2001, I asked why you didn’t hear more condemnations from Muslims. I asked this question after every terrorist incident in which Muslims were involved. I also asked why we – and by “we” I mean non-Muslims – were routinely accused of Islamophobia every time we made a snide remark about Islam being the religion of peace… But you know, when someone commits a crime in the name of Allah, or tries to blow up a plane in the name of Allah, or plots to behead the prime minister in the name of Allah, it is sort up to those who believe in Allah to tell the rest of us that they don’t condone those evil acts.

So for this reason I’m pleased to hear those Islamic leaders condemning honour killings and anti-woman behaviour in general. Even if you suspect some of those leaders of being – how to put this? – less than entirely sincere. And yes, I know some of you object to the presence of fatwas in Canadian society. I understand why. Still, I say we take these issues one at a time and to my mind, making a clear statement against honour killings is a very necessary first step.

CBC boasts that it brings us “diverse regional and cultural perspectives” in English, French, and a whole bunch of aboriginal languages. It also brings us soft-core porn, in that famous international language everybody knows so well.

And yes, you’re paying for it. I’m sure you’re very proud.

As our own Kris Sims reports, Radio-Canada bought and broadcast a French porn sitcom, with the inspired and awfully sophisticated title of “Hard”, and is offering it to its online viewers, on the website www.tou.tv. I’m only showing you little bits of it now, not because I’m such a prude, but because it’s quite early and I don’t want the kids to think this is what the taxes they’ll have to pay one day get spent on. Might scandalize them.

I joke, but seriously this stuff is fairly explicit. It’s nothing you haven’t seen elsewhere, but in a sense that’s exactly what’s wrong with it. The state broadcaster is using the money you and I send it to broadcast internet porn. Because of course without CBC/Radio-Canada providing it for us, Canadians would not know how to find any.

Our very intreprid Kris Sims took that uncensored video to the Hill yesterday, and showed it to various MPs. She asked them whether they approved of tax money being spent that way. Amazingly enough, they didn’t. I haven’t done a scientific study of the matter, but I’m reasonably confident most of you aren’t thrilled either.

Me, I am perversely happy about it. See, I could sit in this lovely studio and talk about how the whole concept of the CBC is no longer relevant in today’s world until I go blue in the face, nothing makes my point for me better than a state-funded romp. Well done, Radio-Canada! You found a way to unite us all… against you.

OTTAWA – A Conservative senator is in hot water for saying Wednesday that murderers should be given a rope in their cell in case they want to hang themselves.

Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who sits on the Senate legal committee, made the controversial comments while talking to reporters before the Conservative caucusmeeting.

“I think of (Clifford) Olson,” he said. “I think of the people who were serial killers who have no chance of rehabilitation. I think, in the end, each murderer should have the right to a rope in his cell. He could decide his fate. But I’m against the death penalty.”

So his remarks were a bit gauche. So he’s apoogized and taken them back. So what? You should see the comments on this story from normal people. As far as I can tell most people agree with the senator.

Me, I’m with Richard Martineau on this one (in French). There is a world of difference between the suicide of a bullied teenager and that of a convicted killer. And be honest: How much would you cry if, say, Paul Bernardo decided to check out?

Personally, I’d be in favour of reinstating the death penalty for first-degree murder. I find the senator’s remarks gauche. But not particularly offensive. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.

First, I wish we would, just once, have an amazing candidate running. Someone who’s both conservative and inspiring. Or maybe someone who’s inspiring because he or she is conservative. And ideally that person would have good morals too – including a family life that’s not worthy of a lousy sitcom.

Say, someone with the good looks and wholesome family life of Mitt Romney, the pro-life dedication of Rick Santorum, the debating skills of Newt Gingrich, the sunny disposition of Ronald Reagan, and Chris Christie’s ability to handle unions, control spending and cut taxes.

Secondly, you know what else I’d like? Someone who’s not afraid to take on the big-government nanny-state enthusiasts, and who doesn’t back down from a fight. And wins them. Someone who, in addition to all those great qualities listed above, has a real talent for annoying all the right people.

That’s why I understand the temptation many people feel to vote for Newt Gingrich. Because he sure is feisty, and many people are tempted to support him despite everything that’s wrong about him. Like his wretched family life, or his explosive temper, or his nasty habit of blaming his failings on the other guys.

Despite his failings, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who has the sure-fire ability to get under liberals’ skin. As a friend of mine who’s a successful entrepreneur based in Florida explained to me yesterday, voting for Newt was the best way to tell liberals to go jump in a lake. If you were looking for an explanation for Newt Gingrich’s puzzling success so far in this race, this is it. If I were Mitt Romney I’d pay real close attention to this.

The rumoured change in OAS is that the age of eligibility will be increased to 67 over an extended time period, perhaps ten years. This is actually quite timid. Consider that when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced (1966), life expectancy was 72 years (combined male-female life expectancy), implying a benefit period of 7 years. Life expectancy now stands at 81, implying a benefit period of 16 years or more than double the original period. Put another way, the age of eligibility would be 74 years today if the original threshold had been indexed to life expectancy.

You know, the point of this whole pension thing was never to give people 20-odd years of carefree retirement living. It was to make sure vulnerable folks didn’t spend their last couple of years in abject poverty. If 20-odd years of golfing is what you want for your retirement, I suggest you start saving your own money, and lots of it.

“This”, by the way, refers to changes the government wants to make to Old Age Security to make it marginally less unsustainable than it currently is. We don’t know exactly what the changes will be. The strong rumour is that we might see the retirement age raised to 67 years old from the current 65. Not for people who are near retirement age, mind you. For people like me, who are nowhere near retirement age. Whoa… Time to hit the panic button!

Thomas Mulcair, on his website, asks Stephen Harper to “stop your attack on pensions!” His party’s interim leader, Nycole Turmel, concludes that “Seniors just can’t trust this government. At a time when a quarter million seniors are living in poverty, Stephen Harper wants to make it harder for them to retire with dignity.”

You know what? From where I sit it’s a completely insignificant debate, because there is no way I’m going to retire. A) because I love what I do and can’t imagine myself being idle; and B) because I couldn’t afford retirement even if I wanted to. I’ve known this for 20 years. Our pension system in this country is a pyramid scheme, and people like me are at the bottom. We’re the ones paying, not the ones collecting.

But for some reason, an awful lot of people got this idea in their heads that they can retire at an early age and live comfortably ever after – without having saved enough money on their own. They believe “the system” owes them a living once they reach a certain age.

Well, I got news for you. The system is set up for failure. When it started in the 1960s there were about eight workers per retiree. In 2030, there will be two workers per retiree. Even if those two workers wanted to support their one retiree, they wouldn’t be able to. That’s the real scary part. Not Stephen Harper’s minor tweaks to Old Age Security. The NDP needs to get a grip.

Still, everybody under Canadian law is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So we kept calling it the “alleged” honour killing. Yesterday the jury told us we could drop the pretense. The three accused are guilty of first-degree murder and will not be eligible for parole before 25 years. My only regret is we don’t have the death penalty in this country. These three wretches deserve it.

So. Now they’re headed to jail, and the rest of us, I hope, are headed towards a clearer kind of political discourse. Anyone now trying to claim that honour killings aren’t happening in this country can safely be ignored, and we can move along to the question of how to deal with this backwards, uncivilized practice.

The twisted and barbaric mindset that makes some men feel that they’re entitled to “control” women’s behaviour is particularly abhorrent, and we shouldn’t be afraid of saying so. If a liberal gives you grief over it, ask him this: Do you think it’s worse to murder a man because he’s homosexual than to murder him over a drug debt?

Yes, killing someone just because of their sexual orientation is especially bad. And our society very strongly disapproves of anyone mistreating homosexuals. Remember the movie Philadephia – Tom Hanks’ character getting fired for being gay? That was in 1993. We’ve moved a long way since then, right?

I say it’s high time we did the same for honour killings and the mistreatment of women in some cultural and religious groups – particularly Muslims. It’s high time we said, loud and clear, that we do not tolerate treating women like that in our country, period.

OTTAWA – Aboriginal and environmental activists opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal have tapped a gusher of funding for their activities — taxpayers.

Almost 50 groups will dip into about $2.8 million from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (CEAA) participant funding program to help them contribute to hearings on Enbridge’s proposal to connect Alberta’s oilsands to a tanker terminal in northern B.C.

[...]

Earlier this month, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver slammed foreign-funded environmental “radicals,” yet some of the groups he was likely talking about got Canadian tax money to advance anti-oilsands arguments.

About $400,000 from the CEAA is slated for nine anti-pipeline activist groups, including $60,000 for ForestEthics, which is funded by American foundations and tied to Tides Canada, charitable group that funds environmental and social activists.

Despite the federal cash, a founding member of ForestEthics, Tzeporah Berman, accused the Prime Minister’s Office of trying to “silence dissent.”

Call your MP, email the prime minister, to let them know you’d rather this $2.8 million went to something marginally less aggravating. Shouldn’t be hard to find.

Exactly what those measures might be, the president did not say. But it’s fair to assume they’ll rhyme with higher taxes on the most productive members of the American society. Which is exactly the opposite of what he should do, and for a few good reasons that aren’t even all that right-wingy.

First of all, richer Americans already pay disproportionately more in taxes than poorer Americans. You need to earn money before you can pay income taxes – and those people who aren’t earning much aren’t paying much. That’s not in principle unfair, provided the differential is reasonable. But past a certain point, people will devote inordinate amounts of time, money and energy trying to avoid paying taxes, which isn’t the best way to use your citizens’ creative energies.

Secondly, “the rich” will always have more ways of avoiding taxes than the average salaried employee earning $50,000 a year. How much is it worth to close all the loopholes and police those people to make sure they pay their so-called “fair” share?

A much simpler solution is a flat tax. Count all the money you made last year. Subtract, say, $25,000 so that students and low-income earners don’t pay much, and send the government, say, 12% or 15% of the rest. No exemptions, no tax credits, no loopholes, no need for fancy accountants, no need for so many tax bureaucrats, no way for politicians to mess with the tax code for political reasons.

That way those who make more money would pay more, but not exponentially more than the guys who make less. And you wouldn’t need to turn your society into a Marxist, redistributionist nightmare. Somehow, I don’t expect Barack Obama to adopt this idea…