A Country Invaded, A People Gagged: The Dominion of Canada Today — A Talk Given By Paul Fromm to Pastor Tom Robb’s Faith and Freedom Conference in Harrison, Arkan

A Country Invaded, A People Gagged: The Dominion of Canada Today — A Talk Given By Paul Fromm to Pastor Tom Robb’s Faith and Freedom Conference in Harrison, Arkansas

I don’t want to spend LIFE in prison .., But if Trudeau has his way …

But if Trudeau has his way… 
my being sent away for life is prison could become a very real possibility. Please help stop this from happening. That’s what this month’s Druthers cover story is about.

Have a peek… it has a cartoon of black face Trudeau on it 😉 See it here.

Are you familiar with Bill C-63? The government has proposed that anyone who speaks out-of-line is a criminal worthy of life in prison! Wow. If this bill passes, it will be a massive blow to the freedom community and to freedom of speech in general, in Canada. It would also deliver a big blow to my own personal freedom because I publish Druthers.

Please… we cannot let this happen!

How do we stop it? The first big step is raising more awareness about this insane bill. I find most Canadians aren’t even aware of Bill C-63 and the extreme tyrannical powers it would grant the government. But, when enough people know about it, I am confident people WILL stand up and strongly say NO to the passing of this bill. If it passes, we are ALL at risk of life in prison.

This is no joke. We need more people to be aware of this insanity in order to stop it.

If you haven’t already, please consider ordering a bundle of 100 copies of this month’s papers that you can distribute into your own community as you see fit.

Or, an even easier way is to order our Neighbourhood Mail service and effortlessly have Druthers stuffed into the mailboxes in your own local community, or any Canadian community of your choosing. This has been a super popular option and delivery has been very reliable as we use Canada Post to deliver Druthers.

Since we started offering Neighbourhood Mail service in September of 2022, we have delivered an extra 800,000 copies of Druthers directly into people’s mailboxes in communities all across Canada! That’s incredible.

We are many, they are few. We have all the power, if we step up and claim it.

Let me know if you have any questions, or if you have ideas on how we can make this stop this even more assuredly, I would love to hear about it. I don’t really want to spend the rest of my life behind bars, all because I publish Druthers. Please help.

I love you all. Stay strong!!


CAFE Attends Shelburne Freedom Rally — Lynne Brooks Interviews Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott

On April 6, a number of CAFE associates took part in the bi-weekly freedom rally in Shelburne, Ontario. Videographer Lynne Brooks did an interview with political prisoner Bill Whatcott (at 14 minutes in the video).

Axe the carbon tax and opposition to Internet censorship Bill C-63 were major themes.

Paul Fromm Interviewed by James Edwards for American Free Press

What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. It was originally published by the American Free Press.

James Edwards: As one of Canada’s most internationally well-known dissident activists, you have spent a lifetime fighting at the intersection of free speech and immigration reform. How did you first arrive at this destination?

Paul Fromm: Forty years ago, I saw planned massive Third World immigration as a policy to replace Canada’s European founding/settler people. In 1965, just as immigration laws were changing in Canada and the United States, the Canadian government began to consider “anti-hate” legislation. I could see that, among other things, as Canadians woke up to what was being done to them, it would be used to quell or silence opposition to the great replacement. Thus, for over 20 years, I’ve introduced myself to audiences as being about free speech and immigration: not enough free speech and too much immigration. The Canadian Jewish Congress had lobbied Ottawa for several decades for a “hate law”; that is legislation, to mute or silence criticism of them. By 1965, their lobbying power pushed then Prime Minister Lester Pearson to strike a Royal Commission to inquire into “hate” propaganda. It was stacked so that it would deliver the desired opinion. Its chairman was Dean Maxwell Cohen of McGill University Law School, a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Saul Hayes, also a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress. A third member of the seven-man Royal Commission was a then-obscure leftist professor from Montreal, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, an admirer of both Mao and Castro, who would become Prime Minister in 1968. In 1965, the newly created Canadian Nazi Party gained a lot of headlines and short-lived notoriety. It was heavily influenced by operatives from the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Cohen Commission had trouble finding much “hate propaganda” in Canada. So, the sudden appearance of a “Nazi” party with young Canadians, not old European immigrants, was convenient to provide a “justification” for limiting free speech. The Cohen Commission’s report provided the outline of what would become the “hate law” (Sec. 318 & 319) of the Criminal Code which would be introduced as legislation by Pierre Trudeau and passed into law in 1971.

Edwards: A particularly alarming and Orwellian piece of legislation has been proposed in Canada. What is the so-called Online Harms Bill?

Fromm: John Carpay, Director of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, calls this proposed law “a full-on frontal assault on free expression, the worst in Canadian history. Full stop.” Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has longed to further censor the Internet. He blamed the Internet as a source of misinformation. He was outraged at the Trucker’s Freedom Convoy protest which lasted for three weeks in Ottawa in early 2022. The Liberal elite despises working class Canadians and describes White working-class men and women as “deplorables”, backward, bigoted ignorant people. That these much-despised people organized such a formidable protest drove the globalist elite crazy. They invoked the Emergencies Act (a war measures act) piece of legislation which stripped people of their civil rights and allowed the tyrants to freeze bank accounts. Trudeau saw that much of the organizing occurred over the Internet. Also, both the Zionist lobby and the increasingly shrill Moslem lobby are complaining of “hate” on the Internet. The Online Harms bill seeks to make Internet service providers responsible for censoring people. The Act adds Stalinist era punishments for online “hate”. In Stalin’s Soviet Union anti-semitism was punishable by death. Canada pretends to be more civilized. So, advocacy of “genocide” – whatever that is – can get you up to life imprisonment for mere words! Also, any branch of the Criminal Code, say assault, if motivated by hate against a privileged group (but not Whites), religion (but not Christianity), sex, or sexual orientation can increase the sentence to up to life in prison.

Edwards: This bill has received global attention and a significant amount of pushback. Has this surprised you and, in your opinion, how likely is it that this might become law?

Fromm: International attention is welcome. Many foreigners are surprised how, under Trudeau, who like his father also admires Red China, Canada has become such a totalitarian state. The likelihood of passage is a good question. Groups like my own Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are determined to fight it right from the get-go. The Parliamentary agenda is crowded, and the hope is that, if we can alert enough freedom-minded Canadians, the bill may never get to a vote.

Edwards: In what ways would this potential law further stifle free speech and expression in Canada?

Fromm: Well, a person who fears that another person may commit a “hate crime” can go before a judge and seek an order that could force house arrest, the wearing of an electronic bracelet, prohibition of drugs or alcohol, forced testing for such substances, and restriction on movement. This would all be preemptive. We know the anti-Whites portray themselves as endlessly afraid and vulnerable. This could result in massive abuse of our liberties. In addition to the Criminal Code provisions, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could now receive complaints about online expressions of “hate” as being a discriminatory practice. At human rights tribunals, really kangaroo courts, where the appointed member (judge) is chosen for a special sensitivity to human rights (they don’t include freedom of speech), and the truth is no defense, the victim has little chance. Also, if the accuser is fearful of retaliation, his/her/its identity may be kept secret from the defendant and the press. In other words, a millennium of Anglo-Saxon individual rights – in this case, the defendant’s right to face his accuser – would be tossed out the window.

Edwards: How would you compare punishment for so-called “hate speech” violations in the United States and Canada, and even European nations like the United Kingdom and Germany, where dissidents receive harsh prison sentences for having politically incorrect points of view?

Fromm: When it comes to speech, America is still a largely free country in terms of legal sanctions. Canada is now attempting to join wretched thought-control regimes like Germany in its eagerness to jail dissidents.

Edwards: Immigration is your other signature issue. Compared to the United States, how advanced has the Great Replacement become in Canada?

Fromm: America is worse off than Canada but we’re catching up. Our population is still 78% White, but massive Third World immigration engineered and enabled from the top is replacing us fast. Toronto, 98% White in 1960, is now majority Third World, as is Vancouver. This is the result of a cold-blooded and deliberate policy of replacement, collaborated in by all political parties except the populist People’s Party of Canada, and by big businesses and banks which have eagerly adopted the anti-White policies of diversity (fewer Whites hired), equity (inferior results and mediocrity), and inclusion (but not of White Christians).

Edwards: What interests drive the open border policies of the United States and Canada?

Fromm: There are several motives. One cabal wants to see Whites replaced. Greedy businessmen always bemoan a labor shortage. They mean a cheap labor shortage. They don’t care whether the potential worker is legal, illegal, Black, Yellow, or Purple, as long as he’s cheap.

Edwards: Though 90% of the population lives within an hour of the border, to many Americans, Canada still appears to be the Great White North. Does homogeneity exist in some of the more remote provinces of your expansive continent more so than in places like multicultural Toronto?

Fromm: Rural areas and small towns are still relatively White, especially in Quebec and the Maritimes. Most of the Third Worlders flock to the big cities – Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Hamilton, Calgary, and Edmonton.

Edwards: I read that the Canadian courts recently ruled that many of the overreaches during the Covid-era were unconstitutional. What can you tell us about that?

Fromm: Yes, in a stunning pro-freedom ruling, the Federal Court ruled that many of the federal government’s COVID restrictions were a violation of individual rights.

Edwards: As an avid observer of American politics, what are your thoughts on the upcoming elections in the United States?

Fromm: I pray for the election of Donald Trump to make America great again. I hope he has learned from his first term the bitter opposition and vile tactics of the deep state and will move swiftly and with determination to build that wall and deport, as Dwight Eisenhower did, millions of illegal aliens.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Paul Fromm is Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Transgendered, Calls Bill C-63 “An Orwellian

Amy Hamm, Victimized for Her Views on the
Transgendered, Calls Bill C-63 “An Orwellian


Amy Hamm, Victimized for Her Views on the
Transgendered, Calls Bill C-63 “An Orwellian


Speaking at a gathering of Reality Based Women Unite! in
Toronto on March 8, International Women’s Day, Amy
Hamm, whose case is discussed below warned: “The Online
Harms bill will criminalize speech. We can be punished without
even opening our mouths, for Internet postings. Bill C-63 is an
Orwellian nightmare,” she added. “It is the last desperate attempt
by a failed regime to silence its critics. Free speech has been in
peril in Canada for many years. Freedom of speech must involve
freedom from consequences like huge legal bills, job loss and
public mockery.” Noting that Bill C-63 will allow anonymous
complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, she
argued: “It’s difficult to fight against a group (complainant) that
cannot be named.”

Amy Hamm said: “We live in a culture that is hellbent on
silencing the voices of dissenting women. The state funded
media does the bidding of a man who loves power as does our
national intelligence service.” She said CSIS has been corrupted
and now classifies those opposed to the LGBTQ agenda as
“potential terrorists” and violent. [Several CAFE associates attended this event.]

New Westminster Nurse Amy Hamm, the Latest
Victim of Professional Persecution
As Canada becomes more and more a Cultural Marxist, woke
controlled society, professional bodies are increasingly used to
punish their members for their political opinions. The
persecution of media star and author Jordan Peterson by the
Ontario College of Psychologists comes to mind. He was
sentenced to re-education sessions to be paid out of his own
pocket. Now, there’s British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm. CBC
(November 23, 2023) reports: “A B.C. nurse accused of making
numerous ‘derogatory and discriminatory’ public statements
about transgender people took the stand in her discipline hearing
on Friday, telling the panel considering her case that she is not
transphobic. During a hearing at the B.C. College of Nurses and
Midwives, Amy Hamm of New Westminster testified that her
advocacy on social and other platforms is meant to protect
women and children from what she described as dangerous
infringements into sex-segregated spaces. ‘I’m not transphobic. I
don’t have any issue with trans people — it’s the infringement on
women and children’s rights,’ Hamm told the college disciplinary
panel. She said she is fighting against what she described as a
‘fringe’ movement of activists influencing official positions on
transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care.
‘It’s a movement that is infringing on the rights of women and
pushing institutions to adopt what are false and delusional
beliefs,’ she said. Hamm faces allegations of unprofessional
conduct for making “discriminatory and derogatory statements
regarding transgender people” while identifying herself as a
nurse, according to a citation from the college. 
Hamm frequently refers to transgender women as ‘men’ in social
media posts, videos and podcasts, implying they pose a danger to
cisgender [that’s woke-speak for normal] women and children.
She has referred to the disciplinary proceedings as a ‘witch trial’
and suggested the college ‘would love for me to suicide myself.’
…. She told the panel she is particularly concerned about
transgender women having access to women-only spaces
including prisons and change rooms. She pointed to examples
like Madilyn Harks, a transgender woman with a history of
sexually assaulting young girls who has been housed in women’s
correctional facilities. ‘It makes me extremely, extremely angry,
and it feels as though people don’t seem to care what happens to
these women,’ she said of female inmates. She said she
completely rejects the concept of gender identity, calling it ‘anti-
scientific, metaphysical nonsense.’”
Political Prisoner Leslie Bory Not

Bill C-63, Trudeau Wants to Implement the Globalist Goal of Silencing Critics

I am genuinely frightened and deeply distraught by the federal government’s latest bill and its impact on YOUR Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Your Freedom of Speech and Expression is at stake, starting with censoring your voice on the Internet.

One “wrong” post on the Internet, and you’re silenced… forever…

Just last week, Justin Trudeau’s (In)Justice Minister Arif Virani introduced Canada, and the world, to Bill C-63, the “Online Harms Act”. 

He is calling for a chilling piece of legislation aiming to reduce online “hate” and “hate speech.” 

The implications are far-reaching and frightening since this bill will not just force social media and big tech giants to merely terminate your social media account. 

It’s social media jail incarnate, where you will pay the physical price for sharing the “wrong” opinions by going to ACTUAL JAIL.


Sign the petition and DEMAND all our elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to resoundingly vote NO! to Bill C-63, the “DEATH of Free Speech.”

This grim reality is something straight out of science fiction, or at the very least, an online censorship law directly imported from an authoritarian regime like China, Iran, or North Korea.

If the Trudeau Liberal government gets away with it, this will be the new normal in Canada.

Here’s what authoritarian Justice Minister Virani’s “DEATH of Free Speech” law proposes:

  1. Update the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC)‘s definition of “hate speech” and “hatred” to include ambiguous terms like “incites violent extremism or terrorism,” “incites violence,” and “foments hatred” (specifically section 318 and 319 of the CCC).
  2. Expand the federal bureaucracy by instituting a “Digital Safety Commission” (aka Canada’s very own Ministry of Truth) and a “Digital Safety Ombudsperson” to receive complaints about “hate speech” and enforce speech “standards” on internet platforms (Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube, Instagram, Twitch, Rumble, etc.).
  3. Grant even more power to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, allowing them to force content removal and impose fines up to $70,000, with a maximum of $20,000 to the offended anonymous complainants.The same commission that labeled Christmas as “racist” last December.
  4. Raise the maximum punishments for “hate propaganda” to life imprisonment.
  5. Enact “protective measures” enabling a judge to act on anonymous reports of hate crimes by requiring accused individuals to wear an electronic monitoring device, undergo house arrest, be banned from public spaces, or have a restraining order against them.

The definitions of “hate” and “hateful speech” are so vague that they could include almost anything: 

Critical opinions, political commentary, even memes. 

The type of content produced by people like Tucker Carlson, Ezra Levant, The Babylon Bee, and CitizenGO.

Add your name and call upon our MPs to stand firmly against Bill C-63, the bill that threatens the very existence of Free Speech here in Canada.

It’s unclear how these claims of “hate crimes” will be verified, opening the floodgates for anonymous complaints from anyone, anywhere in the world.

Does this sound familiar? It should.

This is eerily similar to the current legal case CitizenGO’s own Eduard Proels is facing in Germany, who is facing charges for sharing a meme on Facebook. 

Or Päivi Räsänen, a Finish MP, who is still being persecuted by a vengeful prosecutor for sharing her Christian beliefs online despite already winning her case in court, not once but twice.

If this bill passes, we could see individuals like Dr. Mark Trozzi, Jordan Peterson, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, and Josh Alexander jailed FOR LIFE for sharing their opinions that go against the radical globalist elite’s favorite politically “correct” narratives.

Pro-lifers, pro-family advocates, and pro-freedom supporters could also face similar fates, like the countless freedom convoy supporters who suddenly had their bank accounts unconstitutionally FROZEN for showing their support behind our brave truckers.

The passage of Bill C-63, “DEATH of Free Speech,” would bring the Trudeau Liberals’ vision of turning Canada into a so-called “basic dictatorship” one step closer to becoming an actual-livable reality.

But in this dark time, there is still a glimmer of hope.

We’ve seen the massive public backlash against The Liberal government’s failed attempts to pass similar censorship bills over the last several years.

This is why I am asking you to act now. If you don’t, you will lose the ability to openly discuss and debate important issues, first online and then in person.

Only with your help can we successfully defend all Canadians from authoritarianism and preserve YOUR fundamental human right to Free Speech and Expression!

Join the movement demanding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poiliverve, Jagmeet Singh, Yves-François Blanchet, and our Members of Parliament to say “NO!” to Bill C-63’s assassination of Free Speech!

With hope and determination,

Gregory Tomchyshyn and the entire team at CitizenGO

P.S. This fight is one of the most important fights, if not the most important fight, myself and the entire CitizenGO team is engaged with right now.

Bill C-63 would not only silence me but also you and your voice.

If your fundamental freedoms and democracy is going to survive in Canada, I personally need your help rallying a massive army of voices against this authoritarian proposal before it becomes law.

It takes only a few seconds to sign and then share this petition with everyone you know: https://citizengo.org/en-ca/pt/12377

Only with your involvement can we mount the largest defense ever seen defending your guaranteed human right to Free Speech.

Canadian Christian forced to undergo second ‘hate crime’ trial after already being acquitted

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Albertan Christian Bill Whatcott must be retried for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 ‘Pride Parade’ in Toronto.

Featured Image LifeSiteNews


  • 19

Mon Mar 4, 2024 – 4:00 pm EST

Listen to this article

0:00 / 5:31BeyondWords

LifeFunder: Help Canadian Christian Bill Whatcott fund his legal defense.

OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — An Albertan Christian is being forced to undergo second “hate crime” trial after already being acquitted in 2021.  

On February 15, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Christian activist Bill Whatcott must be retried for “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 gay “Pride Parade” in Toronto. 

“The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision this morning and upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that my acquittal for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ be overturned and a new trial be ordered,” Whatcott wrote on his blog.  

Whatcott’s legal battle began in 2016 after he and a half dozen other Christian activists entered the Toronto gay “Pride Parade” under the guise of being members of “The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.” 

Whatcott has explained that he and his friends entered the parade as “gay zombie cannabis consumers” because the parade was not accepting of open Christians, figuring if they made an attempt to blend in they would be more effective. 

During the parade, they handed out about 3,000 small packages made to look like condoms that contained Gospel passages and graphic photos of sexually transmitted disease sufferers, warning people of the physical and spiritual dangers related to homosexual practices and sharing the good news that Jesus Christ died for all of humanity, including those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. 

Following the parade, homosexual activists announced a $104 million dollar class-action lawsuit, seemingly in a bid to financially ruin Whatcott and to discourage any future activism.

After two years of litigation, the homosexual activists dropped the lawsuit.

However, in 2018, the then-Liberal government of Ontario charged Whatcott with Public Incitement of Hate, contrary to s. 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, alleging that his flyer was tantamount to criminal “hate speech.”

subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic

Whatcott voluntarily surrendered to police in Calgary after a Canada-wide warrant was put out for his arrest. He was released on bail, with one of the terms of release being that his flyer faced a publication ban in Canada.  

Whatcott’s case proceeded through the criminal justice system for 3 years before finally being heard in the Superior Court for Ontario in October 2021.  

On December 10, 2021 the trial judge released his judgment finding Whatcott “not guilty,” entering a verdict of acquittal. 

However, the Attorney General of Ontario refused to accept the verdict, instead appealing the decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 21, 2023. 

The government argued the 2021 ruling failed to properly consider homosexual activist Nick Mules’ “expert” analysis Whatcott’s flyer, alleging it promulgated “homophobic tropes” and “microaggressions.” Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided Whatcott must indeed face a second trial. 

“It seems Supreme Court disagrees with my lawyer and Justice Goldstein and they are content to have me go through another trial again with Nick Mule’s input,” Whatcott lamented. 

“So the first trial is voided and we are back to June 2018 when the Canada wide arrest warrant was issued and I will be going on trial again probably some time later this year,” he added. 

LifeSiteNews had launched a LifeFunder campaign to help Whatcott in his legal battles, a fund which is still active. To donate to financially support Whatcott, click here.   

Whatcott being forced to undergo a trial for a crime which he has already been acquitted of came just weeks before the federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced Bill C-63, seeking to create the “Online Harms Act.” 

Bill C-63 will create the Online Harms Act and modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

In addition to these laudable goals, however, the bill also seeks to increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner, as well as seeking to broaden the scope of the government’s ability to crackdown on speech.  

A top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.  

The proposed commission’s ombudsperson, along with the other offices, will be charged with dealing with public complaints regarding online content as well as put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government.” This panel will be charged with monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”  

Most worryingly, the new bill will allow it so that anyone can file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of so-called protected categories, notably gender, race, sexuality, or other areas.  

Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time

Paul Fromm Explains the Dire Threat to Free Speech — Up to Life in Prison! — of Trudeau’s Bill C-63 – The Online Harms Act

Paul Fromm Explains the Dire Threat to Free Speech — Up to Life in Prison! — of Trudeau’s Bill C-63 – The Online Harms Act


With host James Edwards & Keith Alexander on “The Political Cesspool” out of Memphis, Tennessee

Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

 Leap Day this year is the fortieth anniversary of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s announcement that during a “walk in the snow” he had decided that he would step down and not lead the Liberal Party into the next Dominion election.  He had been leader of the Grits for sixteen years since Lester Pearson stepped down in April of 1968.   With the exception of the six month premiership of Joe Clark he had been Prime Minister all that time.   His was the third longest premiership in Canadian history.   The longest was that of William Lyon Mackenzie King who had been a different kind of Liberal leader.   King, like Trudeau, had been a traitor to Canada, her history, heritage, and traditions, but in his case it was American-style capitalist liberalism to which he had sold us out.   In the case of Pierre Trudeau it was Soviet and Chinese Communism that was his true master.   Canada’s second longest premiership was also her first that of Sir John A. Macdonald.   Sir John had been the leader of the Fathers of Confederation and never betrayed us.   Nor did Canadians ever grow tired of Old Tomorrow.   Shortly before his death in 1891 he won his sixth majority in that year’s Dominion Election by campaigning for “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader” against a Liberal Party that sought to move us closer economically and culturally into the orbit of the United States.   By contrast by the time Trudeau took his famous walk Canadians had grown absolutely sick and tired of him.   The Liberals were heading to defeat, Trudeau knew it, and in the interest of preserving his legacy and what was left of his reputation jumped off the ship before it sank.

The electorate’s having grown sick of Trudeau and his party should be regarded as the expected outcome when a Prime Minister remains in office for a long period of time.   Sir John’s enduring popularity can be taken as the exception explainable by the fact that he was an exceptional statesman, identified with the country he led as no other Prime Minister could ever hope to be due to his central role in her founding, and a personable leader to whom people could relate.   When a Sovereign, like Queen Victoria during whose reign Confederation took place or like our late Queen Elizabeth II of Blessed Memory, has an exceptionally long reign this is cause for celebration and rejoicing.   It is the role of the Sovereign, after all, to embody the principle of continuity and everything that is enduring, lasting, and permanent in the realm.   The man who fills the Prime Minister’s office, by contrast, is very much the man of the moment.   Premierships, therefore, are usually best kept short.

Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, has been Prime Minister since 2015 and Canadians are now far sicker of him than they ever were of his father.   Personally, I had had more than enough of him while he was still the third party leader prior to the 2015 Dominion Election.   Why it took this long for the rest of the country to catch up with me I have no idea but here we are.   It is 2024 and Canadians are divided on whether they would like Captain Airhead to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow, whether they would like to see him suffer the humiliation of going down in defeat in the next Dominion Election or whether they would like to see him brought down in an act of direct divine intervention involving a lightning bolt that strikes the ground beneath him causing it to open up, swallow him whole, and belch out fire and brimstone.  What unites Canadians is that we all wish that he would make like Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney and “please go now.”   Thermidor is rapidly approaching for Captain Airhead and his version of the Liberal Party as it eventually comes for all Jacobins.

The Canadian Robespierre seems determined, however, not to go to his inevitable guillotine without one last stab at imposing his ghoulish and clownish version of the Reign of Terror.   On Monday the Liberals tabled, as they have been threatening to do since the last Dominion Election, Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that would enhance government power in the name of combatting “online harms.”   A note to American readers, in the Commonwealth to “table” a bill does not mean to take it off the table, i.e., to suspend or postpone it as in the United States, but rather to put it on the table, i.e., to introduce it.   Defenders of omnibus bills regard them as efficient time-savers.   They are also convenient ways to smuggle in something objectionable that is unlikely to pass if forced to stand on its own merits by rolling it up with something that is desirable and difficult or impossible to oppose without making yourself look bad.   In this case, the Liberals are trying to smuggle in legislation that would allow Canadians to sue other Canadians for up to $20 000, with the possibility of being fined another $50 000 payable to the government thrown in on top of it, over online speech they consider to be hateful and legislation that would make it possible for someone to receive life imprisonment for certain “hate crimes”, by rolling it up in a bill ostensibly about protecting children from online bullying and pornographic exploitation.  As is always the case when the Liberals introduce legislation that has something to do with combatting hate it reads like they interpreted George Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother in 1984 as a “how-to” manual.  

Nobody with an IQ that can be expressed with a positive number could possibly be stupid enough to think that this Prime Minister or any of his Cabinet cares about protecting children.   Consider their response to the actions taken over the last year or so by provincial premiers such as New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith to do just that, protect children  from perverts in the educational system hell-bent on robbing children of their innocence and filling their heads with sex and smut from the earliest grades.   Captain Airhead and his corrupt cohorts denounced and demonized these premiers’ common-sense, long overdue, efforts, treating them not as the measures taken in defense of children and their parents and families that they were, but as an attack on the alphabet soup gang, one of the many groups that the Liberals and the NDP court in the hopes that these in satisfaction over having their special interests pandered to will overlook the progressive left’s contemptuous disregard for the common good of the whole country and for the interests of those who don’t belong to one or another of their special groups.  

Nor could any Canadian capable of putting two and two together and who is even marginally informed about what has been going on in this country in this decade take seriously the Prime Minister’s posturing about hate.    The leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, when asked about what stance the Conservatives would take towards this bill made the observation that Captain Airhead given his own past is the last person who should be dictating to other Canadians about hate.   Poilievre was referring to the blackface scandal that astonishingly failed to end Captain Airhead’s career in 2019.  It would have been more to the point to have referenced the church burnings of 2021.  In the summer of that year, as Captain Airhead hosted conferences on the subjects of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that consisted of a whole lot of crying and hand-wringing and thinking out ways to get around basic rights and freedoms so as to be able to throw in gaol anyone who looks at a Jew or Muslim cross-eyed, Canada was in the midst of the biggest spree of hate crimes in her history.   Christian church buildings all across Canada were targeted for arson and/or other acts of vandalism.  Not only did Captain Airhead fail to treat this violent and criminal display of Christophobia as a serious problem in the same way he was treating these other types of hatred directed towards specific religions he played a significant role in inciting these attacks on Canada’s Christian churches by promoting a narrative in which all allegations against Canada’s churches and her past governors with regards to the Indian Residential Schools are accepted without question or requirement of proof. (1)

Clearly Captain Airhead does not give a rat’s rump about hate qua hate.   If hatred is directed towards people he doesn’t like, like Christians, he shrugs it off even when it is expressed through violent, destructive, crime.   If it is directed against people he likes, or, more accurately, against groups to which he panders, he treats it as if it were the most heinous of crimes even if it is expressed merely in words.   While I am on principle opposed to all laws against hate since they are fundamentally unjust and by nature tyrannical (2) they are especially bad when drawn up by someone of Captain Airhead’s ilk.

Captain Airhead’s supposed concern about “online harms” is also a joke.   Consider how he handles real world harms.   His approach to the escalating problem of substance abuse is one that seeks to minimize the harm drug abusers do to themselves by providing them with a “safe” supply of their poison paid for by the government.   This approach is called “harms reduction” even though when it comes to the harms that others suffer from drug abuse such as being violently attacked by someone one doesn’t know from Adam because in his drug-induced mania he thinks his victim is a zombie space alien seeking to eat his brain and lay an egg in the cavity, this approach should be called “harms facilitation and enablement.”   Mercifully, there is only so much Captain Airhead can do to promote this folly at the Dominion level and so it is only provinces with NDP governments, like the one my province was foolish enough to elect last year, that bear the full brunt of it.   Then there was his idea that the solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons and criminal recidivism was to release those detained for criminal offenses back into the general public as soon after their arrest as possible.   Does this sound like someone who can be trusted to pass legislation protecting people from “online harms”?

Captain Airhead inadvertently let slip, last week, the real reason behind this bill.   In an interview he pined for the days when Canadians were all on the same page, got all their information from CBC, CTV, and Global, before “conspiracy theorists” on the internet ruined everything.   He was lamenting the passing of something that never existed, of course.   People were already getting plenty of information through alternative sources on the internet long before his premiership and the mainstream legacy media became far more monolithic in the viewpoints it presented during and because of his premiership.   What he was pining for, therefore, was not really something that existed in the past, but what he has always hoped to establish in the future – a Canada where everyone is of one opinion, namely his.    This is, after all, the same homunculus who, back when a large segment of the country objected to him saying that they would be required to take a foreign substance that had been inadequately tested and whose manufacturers were protected against liability into their bodies if they ever wanted to be integrated back into ordinary society, called them every name in the book and questioned whether they should be tolerated in our midst.

Some have suggested that Bill C-63 is not that bad compared with what the Liberals had originally proposed three years ago.   It still, however, is a thinly-veiled attempt at thought control from a man who is at heart a narcissistic totalitarian and whose every act as Prime Minister, from trying to reduce the cost of health care and government benefits by offering people assistance in killing themselves (MAID) to denying people who having embraced one or more of the letters of the alphabet soup, had a bad trip, the help they are seeking in getting free, deserves to be classified with the peccata clamantia.   It took a lot of pain and effort for this country to finally rid herself of the evil Section 13 hate speech provision that Captain Airhead’s father had saddled us with in the Canadian Human Rights Act.   Captain Airhead must not be allowed to get away with reversing that.

It is about time that he took a walk in the snow.   Or got badly trounced in a Dominion election.   Or fell screaming into a portal to the netherworld that opened up beneath his feet.   Any of these ways works.  

The time is come.  The time is now.  Just go. Go. GO!   I don’t care how.  Captain Airhead, would you please go now?! (3)

(1)   Anyone who thinks the allegations were proven needs to learn the difference between evidence and proof.   Evidence is what is brought forward to back up a claim.   Proof is what establishes the truth of a claim.   That the evidence advanced for the allegations in question simply does not add up to proof and moreover was flimsy from the onset and has subsequently been largely debunked is an entirely valid viewpoint the expression of which is in danger of being outlawed by the bill under discussion.   In a court of criminal law the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove the charge(s) against the defendant.   Not merely to present evidence but to prove the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The same standard must be applied to allegations made against historical figures and past generations.   They, after all, are not present to defend themselves against their accusers.   To fail to do so is to fail in our just duty towards those who have gone before us.   The ancients had a term for this failure.   It is the vice of impiety.

(2)   The folly of legislation against hate was best expressed by Auberon Waugh in an article entitled “Che Guevara in the West Midlands” that was first published in the 6 July, 1976 issue of The Spectator, and later included in the collection Brideshead Benighted (Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986).    Michael Wharton, however, writing as “Peter Simple” was second to none, not even Waugh, in ridiculing this sort of thing.– Gerry T, Neal