Support Finnish Politician Jailed for Posting a Bible Verse!
Sadly, in today’s culture, it is an ever growing trend for those not following the status quo to face persecution and in some cases, imprisonment.
The latest recipient of this kind of persecution is Finnish parlimentarian Päivi Räsänen who is facing jail for posting a Bible verse on her personal Twitter account.
Simply because Räsänen expressed her sincerely held beliefs publicly, the police launched an investigation and subjected her to a four-hour interview. Räsänen now faces a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for the crime of so-called “ethnic agitation.”
It all began in June 2019 when the church board of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland announced its official partnership with the LGBT event “Pride 2019”. Räsänen questioned her church’s leadership on this decision on social media, attaching an image of a Bible passage.
The prosecution has also dug up a secondary charge which finds fault with a pamphlet she wrote in 2004 “Male and female He created them – Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity”.
The third charge stems from Räsänen’s views on a Finnish Broadcasting Corporation radio station on the topic of “What would Jesus think about homosexuals?”.
Despite facing jail and ongoing persecution, Räsänen has shown indomitable strength: “I cannot accept that voicing my religious beliefs could mean imprisonment. I do not consider myself guilty of threatening, slandering or insulting anyone. My statements were all based on the Bible’s teachings on marriage and sexuality,” she said.
“I will defend my right to confess my faith, so that no one else would be deprived of their right to freedom of religion and speech. I hold on to the view that my expressions are legal and they should not be censored. I will not back down from my views. I will not be intimidated into hiding my faith. The more Christians keep silent on controversial themes, the narrower the space for freedom of speech gets.“
This is critical. Not only is Mrs. Räsänen’s freedom at stake, but also yours and mine. The very definition of what it means to live in a free society is one in which the state should not be allowed to dictate what you can or cannot say and think.
And while you may not live in Finland and think you are safe in your homes in the Canada, the United States, or the United Kingdom, there are plenty of cases of Christians facing persecution right here in our own countries.
In Canada, we’ve seen provinces ban all pro-life expression around abortion clinics. We’ve seen school board trustees penalized for expressing biblical teachings about homosexuality. One might even remember that Jordan Peterson originally came to prominence due to his freedom of speech being suppressed.
It is our duty to stop this persecution in its tracks.
Freedom of speech and Freedom of religion are a fundamental human right (as found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 18 and 19, and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union article 11) and part of that includes the ability to express one’s sincerely held beliefs and not only that, but also practice them. In this case Räsänen is simply following Biblical teachings. She is not being malevolent, violent or malicious to those with disagreeing views. Her only “crime” has been expressing publicly a view which is not popular in our modern society. When you look at the underlying issue even deeper, it’s nothing more than effort to silence those who speak the truth.
Punishing individuals such as Räsänen sets a very dangerous precedence apart from the fact that it shuts down honest, open public dialogue. It effectively makes following Jesus a criminal act and expressing Biblical teachings, “hate speech” – all based purely off the arbitrary definition of what one can take “offence” to.
Faith, in Christian theology, is not the greatest of virtues – that is charity, or Christian love, but it is the most fundamental in the root meaning of fundamental, that is to say, foundational. Faith is the foundation upon which the other Christian theological virtues of hope and charity stand. (1) Indeed, it is the foundation upon which all other Christian experience must be built. It is the appointed means whereby we receive the grace of God and no other step towards God can be taken apart from the first step of faith. The Object of faith is the True and Living God. The content of faith can be articulated in more general or more specific terms as the context of the discussion requires. At its most specific the content of the Christian faith is the Gospel message, the Christian kerygma about God’s ultimate revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. At its most general it is what is asserted about God in the sixth verse of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, that “He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him”.
Whether articulated in its most general terms or its most specific, the faith Christianity calls for us to place in God is a confidence that presupposes His Goodness and His Omnipotence. This has led directly to a long-standing dilemma that skeptics like to pose to Christian believers. It is known as the problem of evil. It is sometimes posed as a question, at other times it is worded as a challenging assertion, but however formulated it boils down to the idea that the presence of evil in a world created by and ruled by God is inconsistent with God’s being both Good and Omnipotent. The challenge to the Christian apologist, therefore, is to answer the question of how evil can be present in a world created by and ruled by a Good and Omnipotent God. This dilemma has been raised so often that there is even a special word for theological and philosophical answers to the dilemma – theodicy.
Christian orthodoxy does have an answer to this question. The answer is a complex one, however, and we are living in an era that is impatient with complex answers. For this reason, Christian apologists now offer a simple answer to the question – free will. This is unfortunate in that this answer, while not wrong, is incomplete and requires the context of the full, complex answer, to make the most sense.
The fuller answer begins with an observation about how evil is present in the world. In this world there are things which exist in the fullest sense of the word – they exist in themselves, with essences of their own. There are also things which exist, not in themselves, but as properties or qualities of things which exist in themselves. Take redness for example. It does not exist in itself, but as a property of apples, strawberries, wagons, etc. Christian orthodoxy tells us that while evil is present in the world, it does not exist in either of these senses. It has no essence of its own. Nor does it exist as a created property of anything that does. God did not create evil, either as a thing in itself, or as a property of anything else that He created. Just as a bruise is a defect in the redness of an apple, so evil is present in the world as a defect in the goodness of moral creatures.
If that defect is there, and it is, and God did not put it there, which He did not, the only explanation of its presence that is consistent with orthodoxy is that it is there due to the free will of moral creatures. Free will, in this sense of the expression, means the ability to make moral choices. Free will is itself good, rather than evil, because without it, no creature could be a moral creature who chooses rightly. The ability to choose rightly, however, is also the ability to choose wrongly. The good end of a created world populated by creatures that are morally good required that they be created with this ability, good itself, but which carries with it the potential for evil.
One problem with the short answer is the expression “free will” itself. It must be carefully explained, as in the above theodicy, because it can be understood differently, and if it is so understood differently, this merely raises new dilemmas rather than resolving the old one. Anyone who is familiar with the history of either theology or philosophy knows that “free will” is an expression that has never been used without controversy. It should be noted, though, that many of those controversies do not directly affect what we have been discussing here. Theological debates over free will, especially those that can be traced back to the dispute between St. Augustine and Pelagius, have often been about the degree to which the Fall has impaired the freedom of human moral agency. Since this pertains to the state of things after evil entered into Creation it need not be brought into the discussion of how evil entered in the first place although it often is.
One particular dilemma that the free will theodicy raises when free will is not carefully explained is the one that appears in a common follow-up challenge that certain skeptics often pose in response. “How can we say that God gave mankind free will”, such skeptics ask us, “when He threatens to punish certain choices as sin?”
Those who pose this dilemma confuse two different kinds of freedom that pertain to our will and our choices. When we speak of the freedom of our will in a moral context we can mean one of two things. We could be speaking of our agency – that we have the power and ability when confronted with choices, to think rationally about them and make real choices that are genuinely our own, instead of pre-programmed, automatic, responses. We could also, however, be speaking of our right to choose – that when confronted with certain types of choices, we own our own decisions and upon choosing will face only whatever consequences, positive or negative, necessarily follow from our choice by nature and not punitive consequences imposed upon us by an authority that is displeased with our choice. When Christian apologists use free will in our answer to the problem of evil, it is freedom in the former sense of agency that is intended. When skeptics respond by pointing to God’s punishment of sin as being inconsistent with free will, they use freedom in the latter sense of right. While it is tempting to dismiss this as a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic, it may in many cases reflect genuine confusion with regards to these categories of freedom. I have certainly encountered many Christian apologists who in their articulation of the free will theodicy have employed language that suggests that they are as confused about the matter as these skeptics.
Christianity has never taught that God gave mankind the second kind of freedom, freedom in the sense of right, in an absolute, unlimited, manner. To say that He did would be the equivalent of saying that God abdicated His Sovereignty as Ruler over the world He created. Indeed, the orthodox answer to the problem of evil dilemma is not complete without the assertion that however much evil may be present in the world, God as the Sovereign Omnipotent Ruler of all will ultimately judge and punish it. What Christianity does teach is that God gave mankind the second kind of freedom subject only to the limits of His Own Sovereign Rule. Where God has not forbidden something as a sin – and, contrary to what is often thought, these are few in number, largely common-sensical, and simple to understand – or placed upon us a duty to do something – these are even fewer – man is free to make his own choices in the second sense, that is to say, without divinely-imposed punitive consequences.
Today, a different sort of controversy has arisen in which the arguments of one side confuse freedom as agency with freedom as right. Whereas the skeptics alluded to above point to rules God has imposed in His Sovereign Authority limiting man’s freedom as right in order to counter an argument made about man’s freedom as agency, in this new controversy man’s freedom as agency is being used to deny that government tyranny is infringing upon man’s freedom as right.
Before looking at the specifics of this, let us note where government authority fits in to the picture in Christian orthodoxy.
Human government, Christianity teaches, obtains its authority from God. This, however, is an argument for limited government, not for autocratic government that passes whatever laws it likes. If God has given the civil power a sword to punish evil, then it is authorized to wield that sword in the punishment of what God says is evil not whatever it wants to punish and is required, therefore, to respect the freedom that God has given to mankind. Where the Modern Age went wrong was in regarding the Divine Right of Kings as the opposite of constitutional, limited, government, rather than its theological basis. Modern man has substituted secular ideologies as that foundation and these, even liberalism with all of its social contracts, natural rights, and individualism, eventually degenerate into totalitarianism and tyranny.
Now let us look at the controversy of the day which has to do with forced vaccination. As this summer ends and we move into fall governments have been introducing measures aimed at coercing and compelling people who have not yet been fully vaccinated for the bat flu to get vaccinated. These measures include mandates and vaccine passports. The former are decrees that say that everyone working in a particular sector must either be fully vaccinated by a certain date or submit to frequent testing. Governments have been imposing these mandates on their own employees and in some cases on private employers and have been encouraging other private employers to impose such mandates on their own companies. Vaccine passports are certificates or smartphone codes that governments are requiring that people show to prove that they have been vaccinated to be able to travel by air or train or to gain access to restaurants, museums, movie theatres, and many other places declared by the government to be “non-essential”. These mandates and passports are a form of coercive force. Through them, the government is telling people that they must either agree to be vaccinated or be barred from full participation in society. Governments, and others who support these measures, respond to the objection that they are violating people’s right to choose whether or not some foreign substance is injected into their body by saying “it’s their choice, but there will be consequences if they choose not be vaccinated”.
The consequences referred to are not the natural consequences, whatever these may be, positive or negative, of the choice to reject a vaccine, but punitive consequences imposed by the state. Since governments are essentially holding people’s jobs, livelihoods, and most basic freedoms hostage until they agree to be vaccinated, those who maintain that this is not a violation of the freedom to accept or reject medical treatment would seem to be saying that unless the government actually removes a person’s agency, by, for example, strapping someone to a table and sticking a needle into him, it has not violated his right to choose. This obviously confuses freedom as agency with freedom as right and in a way that strips the latter of any real meaning.
What makes this even worse is that the freedom/right that is at stake in this controversy, each person’s ownership of the ultimate choice over whether or not a medical treatment or procedure is administered to his body, is not one that we have traditionally enjoyed merely by default due to the absence of law limiting it. Rather it is a right that has been positively stated and specifically acknowledged, and enshrined both in constitutional law and international agreement. If government is allowed to pretend that it has not violated this well-recognized right because its coercion has fallen short of eliminating agency altogether then is no other right or freedom the trampling over of which in pursuit of its ends it could not or would not similarly excuse. This is tyranny, plain and simple.
Whether in theology and philosophy or in politics, the distinction between the different categories of freedom that apply to the human will is an important one that should be recognized and respected. Agency should never be confused with right, or vice versa.
(1) Hope and charity, as Christian virtues, have different meanings from those of their more conventional uses. In the case of hope, the meanings are almost the exact opposite of each other. Hope, in the conventional sense, is an uncertain but desired anticipation, but in the Christian theological sense, is a confident, assured, expectation. It is in their theological senses, of course, that I mean when I say that hope and charity are built on the foundation of faith. — Gerry T. Neal
Quebec to table bill banning anti-vaccine protests near schools and hospitals
No surprise here. Drunk on power from having put his province under house arrest (curfew) for months, further violating people’s rights is just too tasty to refuse. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/22/quebec-to-table-bill-banning-anti-vaccine-protests-near-schools-and-hospitals.html
Quebec to table bill banning anti-vaccine protests near schools and hospitals
JSBy Jacob SerebrinThe Canadian PressWed., Sept. 22, 2021timer1 min. readupdateArticle was updated 2 hrs ago
MONTREAL – Quebec Premier François Legault said he plans to table a bill Thursday that would ban anti-vaccine protests near schools and hospitals.
Legault said the bill will be presented to his cabinet for approval Wednesday afternoon, and he hopes to have the support of all opposition parties so the bill can pass quickly.
“What we want to do, starting (Thursday), is pass a special bill to fine people who are going to hold anti-vaccine protests,” he said at the legislature in Quebec City.
“It doesn’t make sense to have anti-vaccine protests in front of places that are for our children or our patients,” Legault said later during question period.
Earlier Wednesday, the three main opposition parties said it’s unacceptable that protesters are approaching children in an attempt to discourage them from following health orders and getting vaccinated. They said they were ready to work with the government to adopt the law quickly.
Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the spokesperson for the Québec solidaire party, said he supports legislation but he doesn’t want it to ban other types of protest outside schools, such as demonstrations by parents who support public education.
Since classes resumed last month, at least five protests have taken place outside primary and secondary schools in Montreal. Protests have also occurred outside hospitals.
In 2016, Quebec banned protests within 50 metres of abortion clinics.
Quebec reported 683 new cases of COVID-19 Wednesday and five additional deaths linked to the novel coronavirus.
The Health Department said the number of hospitalizations rose by six, to 280, and 91 people were in intensive care, an increase of five from the day before.
The province’s public health institute said 89 per cent of Quebec residents 12 and over have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 84.5 per cent are considered adequately vaccinated.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 22, 2021.
Two Brave Christian Women, Political Prisoners,for Attending END THE LOCKDOWN Rallies
Fantastic Worldwide Freedom Rally in Toronto, September 18. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression with Kimberly & Judith, both deeply religious women & political prisoners. Both handcuffed by cops for peaceful END THE LOCKDOWN protests this year.
Thousands of Montrealers protest Quebec’s vaccine passport – Aug. 14, 2021
Why didn’t we see this in the Fake News Media or on the Communist Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)? Thousands of Montrealers took to the downtown streets on Saturday to protest Quebec government’s decision to impose a COVID-19 vaccine passport to control access to festivals, bars, restaurants & gyms.
Where each party stands on life, family, and freedom
CitizenGO legally cannot tell you which party to vote for, and we cannot tell you which candidate to vote for.
We will, however, say that it’s very important that you let your voice be heard on Monday, and do what you can to vote for the candidate that best represents your values.
It’s been the aim of CitizenGO from the very beginning to fight for the common good and for the dignity of every human person. We strive to protect life from conception to natural death, the recognition of family and the most basic and natural unit of society, and freedom.
For this reason, we think it’s important to break down the platforms of each federal party, so that you know how each party winning could affect our country when it comes to issues of life, family, and freedom:
Plans to revoke charity status to pro-life organizations, including crisis pregnancy centres who provide care and counseling to women who have chosen life
Plans to penalize provincial governments who refuse to fund abortion outside of hospitals (such as in the case of New Brunswicks’s Clinic 554)
Plans to give legal protection to any business or organization in Canada that demands that all their employees be vaccinated
Plans to ban all forms of conversion therapy, banning the work of groups such as Courage International, who non-coercively help people ro live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality
Also…
Almost every Liberal Party MP voted for Bill C-7, which radically expanded Canada’s euthanasia law, allowing euthanasia for reasons of mental illness alone, and for the incompetent who cannot provide consent but have signed an advanced directive (Source)
Every Liberal Party MP (in attendance) voted against Bill C-233, which would have banned the barbaric practice of sex-selective abortion (Source)
The Trudeau government introduced Bill C-10 and Bill C-36, both of which aimed to censor Canadians on the internet (Source)
Plans to repeal Bill C-7, a bill which expanded Canada’s euthanasia law, allowing euthanasia for reasons of mental illness alone, and for the incompetent who cannot provide consent but have signed an advanced directive
Plans to ban conversion therapy, but clarifies that non-coerceive conversations will not be criminalized
Though the platform claims to support the conscience rights of medical professionals, Erin O’Toole has since clarified that he believes in effective referrals. This means that if a patient wants to be killed through euthanasia, but a medical professional objects to killing them, the medical professional must still violate their conscience by referring their patient to a doctor who is fine euthanizing the patient (Source)
Also…
O’Toole says that a Conservative government would not interfere with New Brunswick’s decision to not fund abortions that are not in hospitals (Source)
Though the majority of Conservative MPs voted for Bill C-233, which would have banned the barbaric practice of sex-selective abortion, Erin O’Toole voted against it. He has repeatedly referred to himself as pro-choice. (Source) (Source)
Every Conservative MP (in attendance) voted against Bill C-10, a bill which threatened to censor Canadians by applying broadcasting regulations to social media users (Source)
Plans to interfere with provincial governments who refuse to fund abortion outside of hospitals (such as in the case of New Brunswicks’s Clinic 554)
Plans to increase access to abortion in rural areas and in the North
Plans to ban all forms of conversion therapy, banning the work of groups such as Courage International, who non-coercively help people ro live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality
Will use the government to crack down on what the NDP believes to be the spread of disinformation and “fake news”
Also…
Every NDP MP (in attendance) voted for Bill C-10, a bill which threatened to censor Canadians by applying broadcasting regulations to social media users (Source)
The NDP supported Bill C-7, which expanded Canada’s eiuthanasia laws, but opposed it and voted against it when the Senate added multiple amendments to it (Source) (Source)
Every NDP MP (in attendance) voted against Bill C-233, which would have banned the barbaric practice of sex-selective abortion (Source)
Plans to repeal C-16 and M-103, and oppose C-10, and C-36, which are all bills that either censor Canadians or compel/condemn the speech of Canadians who express politically-incorrect views
Plans to ensure that Canadians are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions
Plans to withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty
Opposes vaccine mandates and vaccine passports
Bloc Quebecois:
Every Bloc Quebecois MP (in attendance) voted for Bill C-10, a bill which threatened to censor Canadians by applying broadcasting regulations to social media users (Source)
Every Bloc Quebecois MP (in attendance) voted against Bill C-233, which would have banned the barbaric practice of sex-selective abortion (Source)
Every Bloc Quebecois MP voted for Bill C-7, which radically expanded Canada’s euthanasia law, allowing euthanasia for reasons of mental illness alone, and for the incompetent who cannot provide consent but have signed an advanced directive (Source)
Plans to ban all forms of conversion therapy, banning the work of groups such as Courage International, who non-coercively help people ro live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality
Plans to legalize prostitution
Plans to expand programs in “reproductive health, rights, and in sexual and reproductive health education”
The Issue is Freedom. Why I’m Supporting Maxime Bernier – Paul Fromm
Paul Fromm recommends that Canadians vote for Maxime Bernier in the federal election Sept. 20th, 2021. Maxime is the leader of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). All the other parties have very much the same wrong views on major issues such as mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports, global warming, immigration, etc.
Paul Fromm has been the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression since 1983. CAFE is dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity. The website can be found at cafe.nfshost.com
Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: canadafirst.nfshost.com Paul lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and you can contact him at paul@paulfromm.com . He has been an active leader on the Canadian right for 50 years and has a steel trap memory so he is a treasure and resource of information and history. https://www.bitchute.com/video/9THkEe7aLdjd/
The People’s Party of Canada Platform on COVID Tyranny
Issue
The unprecedented government response to the covid-19 pandemic has had massively negative repercussions on Canadians’ physical and mental health, economic well-being, as well as their rights and freedoms.
The standard approach to pandemic management had always been to protect the vulnerable and allow the rest of the healthy population to go about their regular lives while building herd immunity. Lockdowns of entire populations were never part of any pre-covid pandemic planning.
This experiment was largely ineffective in reducing the spread of the virus, but caused significant collateral damage. The vast majority of covid victims were elderly patients with comorbidities in nursing homes that governments failed to protect. Lockdown measures will cause even more deaths in the longer term due to stress-related illnesses, depression, postponement of surgeries, drug overdose, suicide, domestic violence, etc.
Governments don’t want to admit that they were wrong and are imposing increasingly authoritarian measures on the population, including vaccine passports. Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated will suffer under a regime of segregation, constant control, and surveillance. It is illusory to believe that the virus can be eradicated. We have to learn to live with it, without destroying our way of life in the process.
FACTS
Lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, and other authoritarian sanitary measures have not had any noticeable effect on the course of the pandemic. Regions or countries that implemented strict measures have been as impacted as those that did not.
Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can get infected and transmit the virus, which negates the rationale for segregation and vaccine passports.
Section 1 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that reasonable limits to our rights and freedoms can only be imposed if it has been demonstrated that they are justified in a free and democratic society. Such a demonstration has not been made for covid restrictions, most of which are arguably unconstitutional.
PLAN
Although most of the measures in response to the covid pandemic have been implemented by provincial governments, Ottawa has an important coordinating role to play at the national level and can influence provincial policies. The federal public health agency coordinates policies with provincial agencies. Ottawa also encouraged and supported lockdown policies through the transfer of tens of billions of dollars in financial aid to provinces and territories.
A People’s Party government will:
Promote a rational and scientifically based approach to the pandemic that focuses on the protection of the most vulnerable, guarantees the freedom of Canadians to make decisions based on informed consent, and rejects coercion and discrimination.
Fire the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Theresa Tam and replace her with someone who will work with provincial agencies to implement a rational approach to the pandemic, instead of following the recommendations of the World Health Organization.
Repeal vaccine mandates and regular testing for federal civil servants and workers in federally regulated industries.
Repeal vaccine passports for travellers.
Oppose vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and other authoritarian measures imposed by provincial governments, and support individuals and groups that challenge such measures in court.
Support emergency provincial measures to protect the most vulnerable, but stop bailing out provinces that impose economically destructive lockdowns.
Support medical research and development of therapies to treat covid-19 and other viral diseases.
Tomorrow! Wednesday, September 8 at 11:30 – My mistake for not mentioning this at the Bernier rally – my apologies. Some eager beavers had suggested protesting outside the Penticton Herald Wednesay from 11:30 to 1. I won’t be able to make it personally, but don’t let that stop you. We’ll get back on track with Wednesday protests again next week. Some cool poster ideas: “Turn Off Your TV” “Read between the lies” “Investigative journalism? Not at the Herald”
Also Tomorrow! Wednesday, September 8, 6:30 p.m. – Penticton Activists – Wild Scallion Restaurant, 75 Front St. – 6:30 for dinner followed by our meeting inside. Urgent actions required.
– Thank you, Al for hosting these important evenings and for the delicious menu items!!
Saturday/Sunday September 18/19 – World Wide Demonstration 4.0. Gyro Park, Penticton. 11;30 to 3 Tastes of Penticton Freedom Assembly. Bring your ideas for speakers, tune up your musical talents and bring a note pad and pen. I’ll See You There!
Every Sunday, noon to 2 p.m. – Rally in Penticton – Warren Avenue and Main Street. Volunteer updates at 11:30 a.m. – vacant lot on the north-east corner.
Every Saturday, noon to 2:30 p.m. – C.L.E.A.R Rally in Kelowna, Stuart Park by the Bear
Every Tuesday at 8 p.m. on Zoom – Darlene Ondi – Stand in Authority training and role playing / Meeting ID – 813 5697 454 – PW: FREEDOM~o0o~
Remember to have compassion for those who innocently bought into the lies. Getting together with like-minded individuals is a good antidote to all the fear and anger out there and helps us build strength and courage to help ourselves and others. And, it’s the only way to get real hugs.
Maxime Bernier Sets Penticton Audience on Fire: “When Tyranny Takes Control, Revolution is a Necessity!”
Penticton, British Columbia, September 5, 2021.A confident Maxime Bernier wowed an enthusiastic rally of over 300 people today at Penticton’s Gyro Park. The People’s Party of Canada founder and leader called for a freedom revolution by Canada’s Dispossessed Majority: ” “When Tyranny Takes Control, Revolution is a Necessity! … Our goal is to unite all Canadians under the freedom banner,” he added. I want to live in a country described by former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. “ Mr. Bernier, the first federal leader to visit the Okanagan this election cycle took aim at Prime Minister Justin Tudeau: “Justin Trudeau is the most divisive prime minister in Canadian history. “He has divided us by race, by religion and now by vaccination status,” he said to enthusiastic applause. Many of his supporters held anti-forced vaccination signs and were veterans of END THE LOCKDOWN rallies over the past 18 months in Kelowna and Penticton. Mr. Bernier is the only federal leader dissenting from the COVID-hysteria and freedom sapping policies many politicians have imposed. “This virus only endangers those elderly people with several co-morbidities,” he argued. There should be no forced masking, no imposed vaccines and no more lockdowns, he said to prolonged applause. It’s time to develop and made-in-Canada health policy, to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) and fire “that Theresa”(Tam) woman.
“The People’s Party of Canada will fight for Canadians regardless of their race or sex or vaccination status,” he promised.”We want our country back. It’s all about government control versus individual freedom.” He said that last week, the mainstream media, which usually ignores him and the People’s Party, called to see if he would condemn protesters, many from the END THE LOCKDOWN movement, which picked Justin Trudeau’s meetings in Bolton and Cambridge, Ontario. “I told them, no. I am the only leader not condemning them. I am encouraging them to speak out for freedom.”
Mr. Bernier noted the bias of much of the media and the discriminatory exclusion from this week’s leadership debates. He urged supporters to spread the word about the party and its platform on the social media: “Be active on the social media,” he urged, “as most of the mainstream media will not be covering us.”
Maxime Bernier assailed promises by both Justin Trudeau and Conservative leader Erin O’Toole to balance the budget in the distant future, without cuts by magic. This is impossible, he scoffed. The People’sParty is not afraid to cut programmes, he said, for instance: “cut foreign aid by $5-billion and keep the money in Canada; cut corporate welfare — no more handouts to Bombardier and General Motors — by $10-billion; cut the $1.5-billion that funds the CBC.” The crowd exploded with cheers at these proposed cuts.
The People’s Party of Canada local candidates — Sean Taylor for South Okanagan-West Kootenay and Kathryn McDonald for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola — were introduced and distributed literature and lawn signs to eager volunteers.Maxime Bernier stayed for almost an hour afterwards posing for photos with well wishers and answering questions. He then headed up the road to Kelowna for a mid-afternoon rally that attracted about 400 people.
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, commented: “I’ve been attending political rallies since 1965 and this is the first one that ever started on time. Kudos to Maxime Bernier and the local organizers. ” — Paul Fromm
