Labour Day in Canada is the first Monday in the month of September. There is a lot that goes on this day, and the weekend preceding it. Traditions are many for Labour day, and here are some of them:

Many businesses open there doors to the public on Labour Day. Traditionally, it has been places like factories, or other places of manufacturing, but many non-labouring business have begun to take part over the years. The public is invited to see how things work on the inside. It can be a fascinating time seeing how a business operates. Factories usually offer guided tours, and other businesses do similar. School children are often taken on class tours of businesses.

Labour Day is the time many of the unemployed look for work. Many businesses specifically look for new employees to hire on Labour Day. It is like an annual “we are hiring” event. It is an all day affair where someone who is unemployed is able to look for work at almost any business, large or small, on Labour Day.

In the schools, children are usually taught about the capitalistic system, where they learn about some of the fundamental ideas of capitalism, such as: private property, profit motive, competition, freedom of contract, and free enterprise. Older children may earn about how to start a business, or learn a skilled trade.

The weekend is usually when people get out and do some “labouring”. It could be helping a neighbour build a fence, or a even a house. People often volunteer their time to work on Labour Day. Adults usually work for free, but the young are paid for their work. It may be mowing the lawn, light house cleaning, washing a car, whatever small jobs can be done. They are paid to teach them that one must work for the money one gets, and the money earned is theirs.    

Of course, none of the above is true. Labour Day in Canada is the day when most people do not work, but they still get paid a day’s wage for doing nothing, that’s the law, and the socialists give public speeches and demonstrations blaming freedom and capitalism for all the many failures of socialism. I do not call it “Labour Day”, I call it “Marxism–Leninism Day” becasue that is exactly what it is.

(c) Trevor Dailey

Red light cameras are promoted by the municipalities that install them as a road safety measure. It is claimed these red light cameras reduce the number of motorists who intentionally drive through red traffic lights by catching them with a photograph, and then a fine of $300 or $400 is sent to the driver. 

According the laws of the road (Ontario Highway Traffic Act), an amber light means the driver is to stop if it is safe to do so. If it is not safe to do so, then the motorist is permitted to continue only with caution. Failure to stop at an amber light if it is safe to do so is a $150 fine (408). A red light means the motorist must come to a stop. Most drivers who run red lights do so because the driver fails to stop at an amber light, not because it is not safe to do so, but because the driver does not want to wait at a red light. Failure to stop at a red light is a $260 fine (412).

In the City Of London, Ontario, there are approximately ten intersections with newly installed red light cameras. The cost of operating each of these cameras is around $50,000 per year. Where does this money come from? Municipal property taxes. Everyone who must pay property tax is forced to pay for the red light cameras indefinitely. The fines are just added to the revenue stream because the red light cameras are already being paid for by people not breaking any law. There is therefore no reason to make sure these red light cameras are doing what they are supposed to do to for the cost it is to operate them.   

According to those proponents of the red light camera, it is a safety issue. They say, red light camera prevents drivers from running red lights, and because of this, it prevents collisions of motor vehicles in intersections. They present many inconclusive studies. It is claimed there are hundreds of these kinds of motor vehicle collisions in the city each year, and these preventable collisions sap resources from taxpayer funded city emergency services. Traffic lights already have a safety feature to prevent intersection collisions caused by motorists not stopping at an amber light. There is a delay of a couple of seconds before a red light changes to green. For this time, all traffic at the intersection is stopped at a red light. If red light cameras really was a safety issue, then the red light ticket would mean something.

If a motorist is caught with a red light camera, a ticket is sent not necessarily to the driver of the vehicle, but to the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no establishment of the identity of the driver, as is the case when a police officer pulls over a driver he or she witnessed failing to stop at a red light. The officer checks the identity of the driver with a driver’s licence check. The red light camera checks the identity of the vehicle by photographing the vehicle's licence plate.  A red light camera ticket is no more of a problem than a parking ticket. No demerit points are lost. No rise in the driver’s insurance rate. It is nothing but a municipal fine that most people will pay because fighting it in court is not worth it. Failure to stop at a red light is a serious offence, in my opinion, but red light cameras are not there for safety. I say the red light cameras are nothing more than revenue generators for spend thrift municipalities.

(c) Trevor Dailey

Vaughan man beats $325 red light camera ticket in court

There is a local automotive service garage that likes to put commentary on their shop sign. Currently the sign reads:

"Raise minimum wage and just watch the price of coffee."

The implication of the sign is that when minimum wage rises employers will increase the cost of goods and services to pay for the increase. In this case, the price of a cup of coffee is supposed to increase with minimum wage, supposedly causing annoyance to the coffee customer. This is one of those times when a person just does not understand what he or she is talking about. The price of coffee may or may not go up because of minimum wage, but the number of unemployed will.

If serving coffee is not worth $15.00 per hour, then few employers are going to pay for it. It is not a matter of the customer paying a higher price for a cup of coffee, or anything else, and then getting used to it. Either employers will cut the number of employees they have, or they will increase the workload of the employees they have to get $15.00 per hour worth of work from them. In other cases, they may replace a human with a machine, or a computer. What is certain is employeers will not hire the young, the inexperienced, and the unskilled at a high rate of pay. The kinds of people who desperately need employment will be shut out of the job market.  

Minumum wage is nothing more than government price fixing in the ecomomy. When minimum wage goes up, the only ones who benefits is the government by forcing people into a higher tax bracket so the government can steal more tax off one’s paycheque, and the Unions who use the government's minimum wage law to keep cheaper wages from competing with high union wages.

As someone who works a minimum wage job, I can not say this enough: end the minimum wage law now!

(c) Trevor Dailey

Just Right Media (Audio)

21:39 Muddled minimum middle thinking

34:10 : Maximum denial behind minimum wages

33:58 Minimum­ thinking Conservatives

From Minimum Wages To The Wages Of Sin

This is President Donald Trump’s March 2017 Executive Order.

This is a short video clip from President Bill Clinton’s 1995 State Of The Union Address regarding immigration.

These are the numbers of “removals” and “returns” from the United States between 1882 to 2014. Barack Obama was president from 2009 to 2017.

This is a summary of the law in Canada regarding refugees.

(c) Trevor Dailey

I am so sick,  I am so tired, I am so fed up with the red weed of socialism that chokes out individual freedom and economic prosperity.

Isabel Paterson: The God Of The Machine Book (PDF)

Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson Audio Book (Abridged)

Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson Book (PDF)

George Samuel Clason: The Richest Man In Babylon Book (Internet Archive)

Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom Book (PDF)

Free To Choose: The Original 1980 TV Series (Video)

Adam Smith: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book (PDF)

Arthur Nash: The Golden Rule in Business Book (Internet Archive)

My opinion:

The niqab and burka is not religious Islam, it is political Islam, so Muslim women should not be allowed to claim it as part of their religion. There is no violation of a Muslim women's right to freedom of religion, however that maybe defined, regarding the firearms licence photograph requirement. Allowing someone an exemption from a requirement based on religion where no valid claim exists is giving that person a special right, and demonstrates clearly the law was not necessary in the first place. A firearms licence is not a right in Canada, and therefore denying anyone a gun licence because he or she refuses to be photographed without his or her face being concealed, or if he or she refuses to be photographed at all, is not a violation of his or her right to freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(c) Trevor Dailey

As a Muslim, I Think Canada Should Ban the Niqab and Burka in Public

Salim Mansur: Defending the niqab ban

 

When I came home from work today, I found a now yearly tenant notice in my mailbox that if I choose to install an air-conditioner in my apartment, I must pay the landlord an upfront fee because the cost of my hydro (electricity) is included in my monthly rent. My small apartment has no window that is suitable for installation of an air-conditioner, and each year I inform my landlord I will not be installing an air-conditioner. Then I suffer through the normally hot and humid summers of this part of Ontario.  

Some time ago, my landlord replaced all the now banned incandescent light bulbs in the building with CFLs to save on hydro costs. Then the landlord replaced all those CFLs with LEDs to save on hydro costs. Now my landlord has raised the air-conditioning fee by $10.00 because of the rising cost of hydro.

Go figure.

(c) Trevor Dailey

Shockingly Dishonest Pricing – Hydro Rates Don’t Rate

Ontario’s power politics

Affordable Electricity: a Freedom Party of Ontario 2011 Election Plank

Millions of people listen to short-wave radio. Governments like China, Iran, and Cuba have increased the level of their multi-language propaganda short-wave broadcasts. Religious groups are all over the short-wave band spending fortunes in short-wave broadcasting. WBCQ has been broadcasting international short-wave radio since 1998.  Just Right received an extraordinary increase in unique visits to its website after the show moved to short-wave radio after being almost 10 years on FM radio. The short-wave radio broadcasts of the BBC and VOA (and others) are still being jammed by certain countries. These things would not happen if millions of people did not listen to short-wave radio.

What has been a major factor in the decline of short-wave radio broadcasting is not the ending or reduction of state run short-wave radio broadcasters, but that very few countries allow private short-wave broadcasting, the USA being an important exception. Canada, on top of the authoritarian restrictions and regulation placed on Canadain broadacsters by the CRTC, does not permit a private short-wave radio broadcaster in Canada to deliberately broadcast short-wave radio across Canada. It must broadcast its short-wave signal outside of Canada. I presume this is to protect the CBC, “Canada’s national broadcaster,” from competition.  

Governments have been getting out of the short-wave radio business since the end of the Cold War; however, the problem exists that too many governments are not allowing the private broadcaster to move into the space left. This is what is holding back the progress and growth of short-wave radio today.

© Trevor Dailey

For the past couple of weeks, I have chosen to work extra time at my job to try to make more money. Forty hours per week at about $9.50 per hour, after government deductions, is not enough. The problem is, as I have explained above, is the government deductions from each of my paycheques that causes financial difficulties for me in spite of my living a frugal existence. So I have to work longer to get to the point where after government deductions I have enough, which is again less than what I worked hard for and what I earned.

I need to work a minimum of 44 hours per week to earn enough because of the government deductions from my paycheques. If I was permitted to keep what I earned, if the government did not rob me every payday, I would not have to work more hours. Why is the government taking my money by force? E.I. (Employment Insurance) and C.P.P. (Canada Pension Plan) are there to help Canadian workers in the event of a job loss through no fault of their own (E.I.),  and to help pay for Canadian workers' retirement (C.C.P.).

I have been on E.I., and it was never enough money, and I always felt I was being blamed and punished for my job loss which was of no fault of my own. I was laid off because of a lack of work. My employer laid me off. I had nothing to do with it. I had no choice in the matter. The government forcibly took my money for E.I. payments while I was working, and when I was laid off the government took the attitude with me that I did not want to work. The eligibility to collect E.I. constantly changes based on a area’s  "unemployment rate", the number of hours one has worked, and past claims. I am forced to pay into E.I., but I am currently not eligible to collect E.I. if I lost my job from a lay off. My E.I. payments are used to pay those currently recieving E.I. benefits who are not working.

C.C.P. is another government "social programme" that I have been forced to pay into my entire working life. This money, that is taken from me by force, is not directly invested on my behalf. I do not receive a annual statement from the government of Canada informing me of my current retirement savings. It gets, like E.I payments, thrown onto the pile, and given out to those currently collecting benefits. When C.P.P. was introduced in the 1960s, those who retired received a large portion of their working income in retirement benefits. Today it is far less because C.C.P. is nothing more than a government run ‘pyramid scheme’ where everyone working is forced to pay, but only those who were lucky enough to get in early benefit. Retirees must rely on those working today to pay for their  C.C.P. benefits.

For many years, I have had a Life Insurance policy with a private company. I have a copy of my entire policy in writing. I know exactly what my benefits are. I make a small monthly payment. As part of my agreement with the Company, I earn a dividend, which I elected to keep with the Company, and because of this I receive a small amount of interest on that dividend. Each year, the Company sends me a statement of my earnings.

Two private banks approved me for credit cards many years ago. I use these cards to borrow credit from the banks to be repaid in accordance with an agreement. I also have another revolving loan facility with one of these banks in which I may borrow credit at a low interest rate to be repaid in accordance with an agreement. These revolving credit loan facilities have helped me countless times in purchasing food, clothing, paying my apartment rent, auto repairs, and many other things I have needed and wanted.

The grocery store I frequently shop at has a ‘points system’ where I can use my accumulated points, acquired through regular purchases, to redeem for free groceries. I have redeemed my points many times for hundreds of dollars worth of groceries.

I opened a Tax Free Savings Account with one banks where I received a low monthly interest rate on my savings, but it is not taxable within certain limits. The TFSA is government controlled so there are limits to the amount one can deposit each year, this recently was lowered by about half, because the Canadian government apparently does not want Canadians saving money it cannot tax away.

After a long period of unemployment, a private company gave me a job which allows me to earn a living. Soon I will be offered Company benefits to choose.

The socialist policies of the government forcibly redistributes money from those who earned it, to those who did not earn it, and it does nothing but punish those who are productive, and to reward those who are not. The private sector uses consent where both sides have earned what they have recieved.

The conversation began with one of my coworkers commenting to another coworker that she received more pay than her because she worked more hours. True, the one coworker agreed, but it was because she came in an hour early some days, and her coworker was free to do the same. I cracked a smile thinking to myself that was right. The other coworker warned her she would get hit with a big tax bill for working so many hours. She correctly said the more one earns, the more the government takes, and implied that there was no sense in working past a certain point. The government penalizes one for working harder and earning more money.

It was payday, and the one coworker of mine began looking at her pay-stub. Things soon turned angry as she mistakenly interpreted a deduction of her pay being the $50 gift certificate some employees (not including me) received for Christmas. She thought the Company had deducted money from her paycheque. Other coworkers expressed outrage the Company would do such a thing, as they had also received the gift.  

After a few minutes, I spoke up, and I suggested the gift was considered to be income by the government, and it was being taxed. It seems I was correct. I briefly stated my opinion that taxing one’s income was vile. All seemed to agree, but another coworker said in the country she came from, I believe is a Central America country, the citizens were taxed more heavily than in Canada, and they received nothing. Here she spoke well of the taxes because she could see things like roads being built. She said the President of the country she came from stole money from the people. I understood, but I was disheartened by her comments.

What I wanted to tell her is theft is theft. There is no difference between a Central America dictator taking money by force from people, and the elected government of Canada taking money by force from its citizens. I wanted to tell her that socialism leads only to a place of death and destruction, and Canada is inching its way to that place with its slow adaptation of full socialism. I wanted to tell her Canada is creeping towards what she had left behind. I don’t think she, like most Canadians, would have believed any of what I said in spite of the historical and current record of evidence.

(c) Trevor Dailey   

“All Taxation Is Theft.” These words were printed across a man’s sweatshirt whom I happened to see in a store while I was shopping.

My recent paycheque was less than my previous two paycheques. At first, I thought there was an accounting mistake, and I was not paid what I had earned. Then I looked over my payslip.

The number of hours I had worked during the pay period was 83. During this pay period, I had not been asked to work an extra 4 hours on a Saturday, as I had been twice before. I had worked fewer hours; however, there was more to it than just this.

As one who works for a living knows, the more one works, the more one earns, the more the government deducts from one’s pay. As per usual, the government robbed me of some of my pay that I worked hard to earn. For what? The misleading “Employment Insurance” and the pyramid scheme, “Canada Pension Plan”. Then there is the “Federal Tax” that is not explained.

Year to date, the federal government has stollen 15% of my gross earnings. It was my money. It is gone. I have been employed at this job for 2 months now, and I am still struggling financially because the government steals my money that I work so hard to earn. Taxing a person’s income is definitely theft, and its practice should be abolished.  

(c) Trevor Dailey

Two inspectors (one was in training) from The Ontario Ministry Of Labour apparently made an unannounced visit to my employer regarding a health and safety inspection. I have worked there almost two months. I do not know what the two inspector’s conclusions are resulting from this inspection, but I learned from another employee this was the third time the workplace had been inspected for alleged health and safety violations. A truck trailer we were unloading goods from was determined to be unsafe, and access to the trailer was prevented, the loading dock door closed and padlocked. This shut down our major source for production, but it did not stop work from continuing.

At this time, there are only rumours regarding what triggered this latest inspection, the alleged violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and what action the inspectors took against the Company. According to the Ministry Of Labour website:

Posting Orders and Reports in the Workplace

When an inspector issues an order or a report of the inspection, a copy of the order or report must be posted in the workplace, where it is most likely to be seen by the workers.

When, and if, a copy is posted, then I will likely have the information I want regarding this situation.

Part II

The report was posted, and it was almost entirely related to “slip and fall” issues.  A "stop work order" was issued for the truck trailer because the trailer sat on uneven ground from a slight wheel rut, and the loading dock ramp to the trailer was not level when in contact with the dock. The Company was ticketed for some offences. This latest inspection was the result of an aggrieved former employee. More complaints of safety violations were made by some current employees, but all were found to be unfounded by the Inspector. The Ministry of Labour is satisfied all safety concerns have been dealt with by the Company, but some current employees still believe certain work is unsafe.

(c) Trevor Dailey