Reading University has decided to censor a section of a 118-line, ancient Greek poem that makes reference to domestic violence and the ’10 types of women’ for fear that it could trigger distress and offence, reports the Daily Mail.
According to the report, officials at Reeding University cut several lines from the 2,000-year-old “Types Of Women” poem by Semonides of Amorgos, which is taught to first-year classics students, on the grounds that it could ‘potentially trigger’ distress even though no students had complained to date.
The decision sparked backlash amongst some academics fearing a ‘slippery slope’ towards censorship with some critics such as Jeremy Black, emeritus professor of history at the University of Exeter calling the decision “ridiculous”.
“This is beyond naive. It is positively ridiculous and has no place in academia.” said Black.
‘If we applied this same kind of censorship to the news we would end up with a most limited and ignorant view of the world.’
The 118-line poem is controversial because of the way women are portrayed:
It says Greek god Zeus created ten types of women, each represented by an animal or an element. Nine – those deriving from the pig, fox, dog, earth, sea, donkey, ferret, mare and monkey – have negative connotations, with only the female who comes from a bee considered to make a good wife.
Ewen Bowie, an emeritus fellow at Corpus Christi College and Prof Emeritus of Classical Languages and Literature at Oxford University, said ancient works needed to be ‘understood in context’.
‘When you start censoring reading lists you are putting your foot on the slippery slope down towards censoring what is being sold in bookshops.’ he added.
In response to the backlash, the University of Reading, did not acknowledge the removal of the ‘offending’ reference as a form of censorship.
‘The portion of the poem now omitted involved a brief reference to domestic violence. That portion has subsequently been removed because, while the text as a whole is vitriolic, that part seemed unnecessarily unpleasant and (potentially) triggering.”
A spokesman for the University of Reading said: ‘We do not censor academic material.
‘Students have access to all texts relevant to their course and are encouraged to read and discuss a wide range of material.
‘Content warnings are used to encourage discussion and study in a way that allows students to be aware of difficult or controversial material before being confronted with it.’
Anti-vax police officer who compares vaccine mandates to Holocaust resigns
[The latest victim of COVID censorship is a 27-year veteran of he Calgary Police Service, Const. Brian Denison, who publicly criticized imposed vaccines or vaccination mandates. He had been “suspended without pay last month and told he couldn’t speak publicly about a city policy that states officers who aren’t fully vaccinated must submit to regular testing. Governments have used the constantly hyped fear of COVID to bulldoze away many of the rights supposedly guaranteed by the Charter as they impose Medico-Stalinism on Canada. Const. Denison’s comparing to the vaccine apartheid measures adopted by businesses and government to events in National Socialist Germany may be a bit over the top, but, in a free and democratic society, he should have the right to utter an opinion, even if Canada’s vociferous Jewish lobby objects. — Paul Fromm]
21, 2021 • 1 day ago
A city police officer who has compared COVID-19 vaccination rules to Nazi genocide says he’s resigned from the Calgary Police Service.
Former constable Brian Denison, who was once a member of the service’s hate crimes unit, said he quit the force after being suspended without pay last month and told he couldn’t speak publicly about a city policy that states officers who aren’t fully vaccinated must submit to regular testing.
“I’ve been muzzled by the police service,” Denison told a downtown anti-vax rally on Saturday.
“I turned in my resignation because I could not abide by what they were doing . . . their orders are wrong, do not listen to them.”
CPS on Monday confirmed Denison is no longer employed by the police service.
Denison, who was with CPS for 22 years, called for other officers to follow his example.
“Let me be clear about the CPS — they don’t own you . . . the government doesn’t own you and can’t tell you what you put in your body,” he told the cheering crowd.
In a video he recorded while in uniform in late September, he said society’s widening exclusions of the unvaccinated was headed down a similar path taken by Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
“ Those who are vaccinated, a lot of them, look down on us that are unvaccinated . . . it’s very reminiscent of the world war Hitler was persecuting against the Jews, ” he said. …
On Saturday, Denison said Canadian governments’ COVID-19 vaccination policies show “the correlations are there — what happened in history — and they’re happening again.”
Last month, a leader of the city’s Jewish community said that comparison is grossly inaccurate and offensive, but said he was willing to discuss the issue with Denison.
Censoring Dissent in the Ontario Legislature: Independent MPP& COVID Crackdown Critic Belinda Karahalios Banned for 90 Days: Cambridge MPP Belinda Karahalios ousted from Ontario Legislature over vaccination status
Karahalios argued proof of negative test meant she was not in contravention of rules
CBC News · Posted: Dec 07, 2021 2:50 PM ET | Last Updated: December 7
Cambridge MPP Belinda Karahalios was removed from the Ontario Legislature on Tuesday morning because she isn’t vaccinated for COVID-19.
She was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 2018, but was removed from the caucus in July 2020 after voting against a bill that allowed the province to extend or amend some emergency orders a month at a time for up to two years without consulting the legislature.
The proposed laws, expected to be introduced to state parliament in the first half of 2022 with bipartisan support, will prohibit the display of swastikas and other “hate symbols” in public spaces.
The Australian federal police earlier this year called for a ban on “extremist insignia and propaganda”, The Guardian reported.
Alongside the ban, Victoria will introduce sweeping new changes to anti-vilification protections, which will be extended to cover areas such as “sexual orientation, gender identity and people with disabilities”.
The state attorney general, Jaclyn Symes, said that the new anti-vilification laws, along with the banning of National Socialist imagery, would “send a strong signal” to Victorians.
The Liberal member for Caulfield, David Southwick, agreed. His Melbourne electorate has a large Jewish population and Southwick said he had seen an escalation in recent years of the prevalence of “hate symbols”.
“A couple of years ago we saw a swastika painted on an aged care retirement home full of Holocaust survivors … and it’s not just an issue for the Jewish community, it’s right across the board,” Southwick said.
Last year, it was reported that a Swastika flag was flown over a home in north-west Victoria, with the local authorities unable to order its removal because it was legal.
“This abhorrent behaviour has no place in our state. The fact that you’re having to ban something that shouldn’t be happening in 2021 is quite sad, but it’s necessary,” Symes said.
Thursday’s announcement was widely supported by anti-White groups around Australia. Peter Wertheim, the co-chief executive officer of peak Jewish body the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, congratulated the Victorian government.
“New codes and symbols are continually being developed by hate groups and the legislation will need to be flexible enough to capture this,” he said.
“We hope the federal government will follow suit.”
The Equality Australia CEO, Anna Brown, also released a statement strongly supporting the move.
“We look forward to working with the government … to ensure the report’s recommendations are swiftly implemented,” she said.
So far, the new laws would only ban “hate symbols” in physical public spaces, although discussions will take place at a federal level with regards to online spaces.
Symes will be looking to engage the federal attorney general, Michaelia Cash, later in the year on banning internet distribution of these sacred symbols.
“I hope that other states will follow our lead … but I think anything that we can do as a nation to prevent these hurtful symbols and the messages that they convey should be considered by all states. We want to send a message to people that are flirting with neo-nazism that this is not something that Australia accepts,” she said.
“Community Standards” at Facebook Are About Thought Control
FROM FACEBOOK CENSORS: “Your post goes against our Community Standards on spam We have these standards to prevent things like false advertising, fraud & security breaches.” COVID Stalinism: Couple SEGREGATED and FINED $25,000 at Toronto airport returning from work in Florida. http://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=6608
I disagreed and appealed. This piece of bureaucratic insolence followed:
Sorry, this content isn’t available right now You disagreed with the decision.We usually offer the chance to request a review, and follow up if we got decisions wrong.We have fewer reviewers available right now because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. We’re trying hard to prioritize reviewing content with the most potential for harm.This means we may not be able to follow up with you, though your feedback helps us do better in the future.Thank you for understanding.”
So, effectively, there is no appeal. Financial mega giant Facebook is too cheap or too uninterested in free speech to hire more people to consider appeals.
The Free Market Foundation has presented its very first award to PANDA co-founder Nick Hudson for freedom of expression, decentralisation, and an evolutionary approach. Alec Hogg caught up with Hudson to unpack what the award means to him and the rest of the PANDA team. “It’s been a long, hard struggle and a lot of the people at PANDA have put up with enormous risks and challenges to their livelihoods and careers,” Hudson explains. “So to have this recognition for them I think is particularly welcome and important.” – Claire Badenhorst
It was a delightful surprise, yes, and we had a wonderful evening last night with a fairly lengthy presentation and [I] thoroughly enjoyed it. I think true to their colours, they were looking at the work that PANDA had done and our fight against dogma and a very bigoted version of science, and I think they saw in that something that was consistent with the values of their organisation, and I think it was on that basis that the citation reads as it does and they decided that the members of PANDA deserved the recognition and it was very welcome. You know, it’s been a long, hard struggle and a lot of the people at PANDA have put up with enormous risks and challenges to their livelihoods and careers. So to have this recognition for them I think is particularly welcome and important.
On why people at PANDA are under pressure:
There’s a very strange authoritarian aspect that has infiltrated our academic institutions and public health institutions and this notion of science as an authoritarian concept, as there being such a thing as settled science, as science is something that you should follow, almost a trademarked ‘the science’ kind of concept. And it’s very antithetical to what science is actually about, which is conjecture and criticism, dissent and debate, driving the formation of new knowledge, the creation of new knowledge. It’s in that authoritarian environment where somebody who looks at the data has a different interpretation and sees the world differently from the average person. You know, they’re at risk of being cancelled and censured and bullied, really, by these people who are doing something that couldn’t, in any normal world, be described as scientific.
Well, it’s symptomatic of the really weird thinking of a lot of our critics because none of what we have to say is anything to deny the existence of Coronavirus. Our perspective from the beginning has been that the response has been disproportionate and later on the response has actually worsened the situation. So it’s rather strange to attack people who take this perspective and support it with data and quality scientific perspectives and somehow refute it by things getting very bad in a country that has had amongst the most insane policy responses on the planet.
On why he says our policy responses were insane:
We have adopted policies which were already evidently not working in the rest of the world. It didn’t take a lot to look at the emergent data. We did it a year ago. And since then, around 50 papers have been published showing that the stringent restrictions that have been imposed have done nothing. They, of course, have lots of collateral damage involved and they worsen the public health outcomes in that regard but it’s been quite patently clear for more than a year now that lockdowns, which were ruled out by all prior policy guidelines for respiratory virus policies, have indeed been a bad idea and that those guidelines ruled them out for good reason. It’s not a very contentious thing to be saying. The contentious thing to say is that lockdowns are good and that they should continue. That is the novel and unusual thing to be saying and it’s been proven wrong systematically through the entire course of this pandemic. There isn’t a single country’s curve where we can see the beneficial impact or the imposition of restrictions or mask mandates or the detrimental effect of the release of those restrictions or mask mandates. And it’s just been astonishing to me.
You know, when Texas opened up and said, that’s it, no more mask mandates, no more lockdowns, these guys on the other side of the debate called them Neanderthals, predicted disaster and it’s been months now and absolutely nothing has happened. You would think that at some point these pro-lockdown people would start to eat some humble pie and stop encouraging policymakers to enact these restrictions.
On the third wave in Gauteng:
Yeah, it’s a terrible situation. It just wouldn’t be made any better by continuing with mask mandates or going to Level 5 or whatever. I mean, there’s just no evidence for that claim being valid. And, you know, your heart goes out to anybody who’s in that kind of position of having to make these life and death decisions, but I believe very firmly that we’re in this situation precisely because we locked down so hard at the beginning. It would have been much better for us to have pursued the effective strategy of countries like Sweden.
The other thing that’s relevant here and not being talked about enough is that there appears to be a quite high representation among the sick people who are recently vaccinated. And that is not being analysed and discussed enough because that’s another area that is profoundly censored but it’s a conversation that has to be had. We see all around the world resurgences in Coronavirus deaths that coincide with the inception of mass vaccination plans. We have our theories as to what may be causing that and those theories may be wrong but the discussion should be had. Instead, what we get is this blanket silence with no debate happening and everything that we learn has leaked out of official forums and that kind of thing.
On what PANDA stands for:
So we stand for proportionality in response and the importance of conducting cost-benefit analysis before conducting massively impactful restrictions, number one. Number two, we have since the very beginning pointed out that these non-pharmaceutical interventions by and large just haven’t shown any benefit in the data and that the one that held a lot of promise, which was to concentrate on ventilation, especially in hospital and nursing home settings, to reduce the viral titers in the air in their settings was one thing that was really worth paying attention to. That’s only been belatedly acknowledged by the World Health Organisation in the last few weeks. Both the World Health Organisation and the CDC have quietly slipped onto their websites paragraphs saying that, yes, airborne aerosol transmission is an important component of transmission of Coronavirus, and the World Health Organisation for the first time made a nod in the direction of the importance of maintaining good infection control by use of improved ventilation. We’ve been saying that since May last year. Now it gets recognised. Instead, people continue running around doing all the things that they did when WHO initially emphasised fomites and droplet transmission – all the sanitising, all the social distancing stickers, the weird little bits of Plexiglass and so on are still what you see when you walk around. Those are, in our minds, just a completely poor effort in light of the scientific evidence that’s emerged.
On the effectiveness of mask-wearing:
I mean the intuition is, yes, that some percentage of the droplets, the larger droplets would be stopped by a mask – but that’s only a one-stage analysis. The next stage is, once large droplets have been stopped by your mask and you exhale over those droplets, you cause them to turn into aerosols which stay suspended in the air. That’s also not a very difficult intuition to grasp and it’s a better one because it’s consistent with the data, which, as I say and have repeatedly said, is consistent with there being no benefit to a slight harm from the imposition of mask mandates.
I don’t think you should wear a mask. It’s a kind of fantastical idea that viral transmission of respiratory viruses will be stopped by cloth masks. Even the idea that surgical masks are effective is extremely contentious and seems only to be valid to a small degree in the highly controlled settings where the masks are fitted and worn by qualified professionals. There’s modest evidence in favour of those but there’s absolutely nothing to support the effectiveness of cloth masks. The experiments that have supposedly been done to support them are all highly contrived and the European CDC, which did an analysis of the studies that had been conducted, came to the conclusion that all the evidence in favour of mask-wearing was of no evidentiary quality and most of it reflected strong bias. And, you know, you can’t really argue with an analysis like that.
On Covid censorship and the oppression of free speech:
From the start, this whole response to Coronavirus has adopted a decidedly technocratic securicrat surveillance-type tone with oppression of free speech, with all sorts of impositions on liberties and rights that are considered the norm in democratic societies. We’ve been promised time and time again that it was just temporary and that it was two weeks or three weeks or until the vulnerable had been vaccinated or until whatever. The goalposts just keep moving. It should be clear to any thinking person that what we are seeing is an assault on liberal values and it’s not done in the interest of public health. It’s not about a virus.
I think the thing that’s not entering the public discourse nearly enough is the extent to which our institutions of media and public health have been captured by a handful of entities, with the effect that neither the journalists nor the scientists could even speak out if they disagreed with the policies or conventional narratives of the times. And that is just becoming more and more evident by the day. Editorial policy is not free and scientific opinion is not free. So we are entering, I think, very dark times. And this is one of the the hushed-up stories.
There are elements of ideology and culture that I think are the easiest ones to describe. Our universities for decades now have been teaching the completely bogus narrative of postmodernism, of critical theory. This is where wokeness comes from in all its manifestations. This is where safety culture and cancel culture come from. They are fundamentally illiberal ideas. They are fundamentally unscientific ideas. And we can’t get too surprised when we see that our culture is full of people who behave in this fashion. So that’s my starting point, is to talk about ideology. But we also need to look at, as I say, at the influence of some of these super national organisations and the degree to which they have captured our institutions. You cannot find a single mainstream scientist who is not subject to that kind of pressure and who could actually speak out even if they decided that they disagreed with what is being done.
The central question is, why is there no discussion? Why is there no debate? Why are critics of public policy not being engaged with openly and in the public eye? And there are several reasons for this. First of all, there’s this stranglehold that these supernational organisations have, which we’ve already spoken about and secondly, there’s a problem in the culture – an ideological problem – that is antithetical to normal scientific discourse. But thirdly, a lot of these scientists are in very conflicted positions and one of the main reasons they will not entertain debate is they are fully aware that those conflicts will be exposed. So I see it as a three-fold problem that’s very serious and very costly to our society.
On what happens to PANDA next:
We carry on fighting. With every passing day, people come around to our view and begin challenging the narrative that they’ve been fed. They begin seeing that what public health officials all around the world have done is to promote a narrative of fear – fear that causes people to possess a completely distorted perception of risk. The fear is always going in one direction, which is towards overestimating risk and, you know, in those circumstances, it’s terminal to critical thinking and to the ability to make wise decisions and evaluate risk appropriately. So what we see is with every passing day, people wake up one by one and once they’ve woken up, once they come in the direction of open science, in the direction of facts, data and evidence over this very false narrative, it’s an absorptive state. They never turn around and go back into the fear mindset. We don’t see people who have sat down with us and gone through the information in the cold light of day, looking at our perspectives, you know, from a calm and considered perspective, we don’t see those people suddenly waking up the next morning and and wetting the bed. So we believe that that will just continue, that it’s a slow and gradual process of bringing people back to sanity, back to a sense of proportionality and perspective.
I suspect the organisation will remain involved in science rather than gravitate towards politics because it’s not only public health that is subject to this kind of very almost Stalinist approach and culture. I think as we go the frame of reference will expand. The very important thing is that for a lot of the scientists who are involved, many of whom have to be cryptically involved, PANDA represents an absolute lifeline. It connects them back to the science that they first fell in love with and it seems to me that in many ways, PANDA presents the only place to them where they are able to have open debate and discussion with their colleagues, where they’re allowed to be wrong without being shouted at and allowed to learn and change their minds. The scientists appear really to enjoy that. Our weekly open science meetings are now so well attended that we’re thinking of having to break them up into channels. And it’s really a joy to be involved in that because the rest of the week we confronted by this shouty, woke kind of attitude that seems so disconnected from the real world and from the data. So it’s almost as if PANDA has become an oasis for people who love science as opposed to, you know, loving dogma.
On the team at PANDA:
I guess it would be much more depressing if I didn’t have access to such wonderful people and if I wasn’t able to tap the brains of these guys to understand what’s going on. And I mean, the last week was a case to point, again, something not mentioned anywhere in the mainstream media because it runs in the face of the narrative but very big news.
A scientist has managed to uncover the deleted sequences from the database of genetic variants of Covid, which has been a source of great suspicion and head-scratching for us. There was in this database a move taken by a Chinese scientist to delete sequences which he had uploaded. Now, this guy managed to track those sequences back, they were originally up in the cloud and they turned out not to have been entirely deleted. And so he managed to discover these sequences and what they reveal is fascinating because it shines a light on the much larger diversity of the cluster of viruses that you would describe as the SARS viruses. It raises the question that we’ve been saying is suggested by the epidemiological data of whether this virus wasn’t actually around much earlier than the December 2019 Wuhan outbreak. It could quite possibly, based on these phylogenetic trees, have been around for years before and that highlights the craziness of the policies we’ve been pursuing. If it wasn’t even noticed, if there was no epidemic being spoken about, when the cluster of viruses was in broad circulation, then that would really draw the line under efforts to speak of lockdown appropriateness or effectivenes
Independent MP Derek Sloan holds a news conference on Parliament Hill to raise concerns about the alleged censorship of doctors and scientists as well as medical information related to vaccines. The Ontario MP has been critical of lockdowns that have been in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also sponsored a petition questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
He is joined by a trio of trio of doctors and scientists. COMMENTS He is not the only one – Randy Hillier and others are doing this for months, but it’s great news that politicians are waking up. This is criminal. What is Doug Ford doing ???? He should be held responsible for all the lockdowns, fake numbers of deaths and people in hospitals and pressuring doctors and nurses to comply with this evil agenda. NVP
What will it take to turn the tide ? those brave Canadian Politicians and Doctors that fight for our rights, fairness and truth need our support. How can we expect that after being told “fake covid propaganda news” for 18 Months that our Politicians and the MSM will ever retract on anything they have been brainwashing us with? When a few days ago US Senators had the courage to expose the “lies” and hold the ones responsible for the Covid Nightmare accountable, there was hope that maybe Canada would have enough politicians that would have the courage to do the same, instead anyone that speaks against the “planned agenda” is demonized, ridiculed, fined and fired from their job………..what kind of world do we live in ? forcing everyone to take the “Jab” demonizing anyone that does not want to be a “lab rat”. RR
Image provided by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies By Canadian Press
[Some groups just don’t get freedom of expression. Ideas contrary to theirs must be stifled by state control. Some eccentric landowner in Breton, Alberta is flying a Hitler Youth Flag and a Confederate Flag on his property. Perhaps, he’s a history buff. It’s his property. However, the meddling friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in far off Toronto have scuttled off to the RCMP demanding they DO something. ““We urge police to investigate this incident as a hate crime.” [Lethbridge News, May 11, 2021] But, it isn’t a crime. It’s somebody’s expression on their own property of their own views. Canada would be a much healthier country if pushy special interest groups minded their own business.]
Jewish group “extremely disturbed” by reports of Hitler Youth flags in Alberta towns
May 11, 2021 | 3:18 PM
BRETON, AB– A prominent Jewish organization says it is “extremely disturbed” by reports of Hitler Youth flags being displayed in two Alberta towns within days of each other.
The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies says it filed a criminal complaint with RCMP after being alerted on the weekend to Hitler Youth and Confederate flags by a resident of Breton, Alta., about 100 kilometres southwest of Edmonton.
The Toronto-based organization says in a release that the RCMP confirmed that officers spoke to the property owner, who has refused to take down the flags.
The report came less than a week after the Jewish group filed a complaint to the RCMP about a Hitler Youth flag at a property in Boyle, Alta., about 125 kilometres north of Edmonton.
In a recent interview, RCMP spokeswoman Const. Chantelle Kelly said that property owner removed a flag after speaking with officers.
Mounties were not immediately available for comment on the Breton flag, but have said they were investigating whether hate was a factor in the Boyle case.
“Technically, flying a flag is not illegal in itself, so (investigators) have to determine whether there is motivation or something else behind it that is criminal in nature,” Kelly said in an interview last week.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center said Tuesday that “it is extremely disturbing and quite disheartening to once again see a Hitler Youth flag, as well as the Confederate flag, on display.”
The organization said it has written to Breton’s mayor and village council to ask that they work with police to ensure the flags are removed.
“These displays of hate go against the values that Canada stands for and are an attack on not only the Jewish and Black communities, but also on our veterans and fallen soldiers who made unspeakable sacrifices to defeat the Nazis and preserve our freedoms,” Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, the group’s policy director, said in the release.
“We urge police to investigate this incident as a hate crime and for community leaders to send a message loud and clear that hate will not be tolerated in their community.”
Rex Murphy: Liberals’ dangerous arrogance didn’t begin and won’t end with internet-regulation bill
Only a PM and a bunch that carry the delusion they are all-wise and ever-right could have conceived Bill C-10 Author of the article: Rex Murphy Publishing date: May 03, 2021 • 2 days ago • 4 minute read • 714 Comments
The all-knowing Liberals put up a tactical white flag when the national storm of who-the-hell-do-you-think-you-are swept over them concerning their attempt to regulate the internet.
Debate on a Conservative motion related to Bill C-10 was shut down, though the Liberals said Monday the bill will now be amended so social media posts are not regulated. What is more galling and more threatening than the bill itself however, is the set of mind behind it.
The bill may die or be weakened. The thinking that spawned it will remain.
The thinking that spawned it will remain
C-10, an attempt to put a pillow over the free expression of all Canadians, didn’t pop up gopher-like out of the policy burrow of a second-tier Cabinet minister. Quite the contrary. This nefarious nugget was obviously the product of the top-rank philosophes of the Prime Minister’s Office, that sensorium of the whole Liberal party, from which emerges guidance and wisdom to elevate the lives and labours of ordinary Canadians, all set out with the confidence of a closed-minded pope.
And who are the great thinkers who birth such a creature? Why they are a band of intellects unmatched since the days of ancient Greece when Plato founded his academy, and young Socrates and his buddy Aristotle were offering home tutorials at the bargain rate of a drachma a syllogism. Their business card was terse: You learn; we earn. The wokemeisters in the PMO and the Wokemeister-in-Chief, Justin Trudeau, haven’t reached the business card stage, but post-power, you may be sure they will. There are Oprah shows to come, and star invitations to Davos and the IPCC yet to be forwarded in gilded envelopes with computer-generated handwriting.
Attend to this. This retrograde and democracy-denying bill emerged from the heights, out of the thin altitude where the prime minister dwells, and wherein the various wizards and shamans, the praetorian guard of top advisers, hatch their schemes, knit their plots, and advance the Leader’s dearest notions.
Only a PM and a bunch that carry the delusion they are all-wise and ever-right, that they alone and only they, should have rule and command over the thoughts and opinions of a whole nation, could have conceived Bill C-10. Could have put their lawyers to work composing it, then waltzed into Parliament to put it on the Order paper in the first place.
What 21st-century government, aware of speech and thought control in the great and cruel totalitarian governments of the past century, and their cruel brethren of the 21st — Communist China, sinister North Korea, Iran — every tyranny or dictatorship on the globe — would wish to ape and mirror the central characteristic of all such regimes?
All of them ruled and rule today by censorship, monitoring citizens’ thoughts and writing, even private conversation. Speech controls breed a nation of spies.
Bill C-10 may be a kitten-mischief compared with the hideous savageries of full-blown tyrannies. But great oaks out of little acorns grow. Beware the seedlings of thought and speech control. Which is another way of saying do not let governments even toy with the fundamentals of democratic understanding and the absolutes of democratic practice.
Beware the seedlings of thought and speech control
Here’s another observation: a government that yearns to censor, to pry and oversee the speech and thought of its citizens, doesn’t trust its citizens. And believes therefore it has a right to herd them into holding opinions that their wiser, smarter and obviously more progressive government tells them they must have. It’s a marvellous instance of political conceit.
Their “reasoning” preceding the drawing up Bill C-10, may easily be imagined. It would go something like this:
“Well, they (meaning the citizenry) elected us (meaning the Liberal party). And we, therefore being superior beings, now have the right to bring them up to our standards of respectable thought and acceptable opinion. We will wipe clean the moral blackboard. And lay out for the voters what the voters are allowed to say, and what they must say. Call it Cuba in a cold climate.
“We will also then apologize for their forebears, for those morally-numb pioneers who built the house of iniquity we know as Canada. We will deplore every past prime minister who was sadly neither as tolerant nor as knowing as we, Deo gratias, are. Going ahead as progressives, let us insist on the right to declare the ideas Canadians should have, and put a block on those they cannot be allowed to have. And let us be grateful that this is the one administration, the first since 1867, with the wit and moral savvy to recognize what was deficient in all who went before us. All of course save one.”
Story continues below https://df921c9accdf04b7c28085eb557c14fa.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
The mindset is more dangerous than the bill
There, in speculative and imagined dialogue, is the voice of the mindset behind C-10. And the mindset is more dangerous than the bill: an assertion that this government knows what’s best and has the right to impose its ideas of what is right on everyone else. This is the new religion of woke.
They may have suspended the charge up the hill to put C-10 into law. But they have not unroped themselves from the attitudes and intentions behind it. The mindset behind C-10 is more consequential than the bill which issued from it. That this band of woke virtuecrats understand themselves as better, more clever and ever how entitled to impose all the imperatives of their virtue commandments on you.
I’ll end with the words of one who was previously vice-chairman of the CRTC, Peter Menzies. C-10 “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” Well said, Mr. Menzies.