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
In the early morning hours of July 19, St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in Surrey, which served 500 families and provided food for the homeless, was set aflame and completely destroyed. Only one charred wall remains standing.
According to the report, “The cause of the fire is still under investigation, but Surrey RCMP [police] said it is being treated as ‘suspicious.’ The St. George Coptic Orthodox Church was also the target of an attempted arson just last Wednesday, although authorities do not know if the two incidents are connected.”
What, exactly, do Canadian mounted police find “suspicious”? The church was clearly targeted for arson, as evidenced by the fact that it was targeted for arson a few days earlier, and at the very same time (between 2:30-4:00 a.m.). On July 14, surveillance video captured a woman lighting a fire, one that failed to catch, at the church door. That the “authorities do not know if the two incidents are connected” seems like wishful thinking.
What is deserving of the term “suspicious” is that, days after the church reported the first failed arson attempt to police—which should have led to better awareness and security for the church—another successful arson attempt took place.
After expressing its “immense sadness and pain” at the loss of the church, a statement from the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Mississauga called on Premier John Horgan and the authorities to expedite the investigation, correctly observing that “The timing of this fire … raises many questions about what the authorities did to protect our church, especially considering the attempt on the same church this past Wednesday.”
Similarly, congregant Nancy Khalil, whose family helped build the now destroyed sanctuary, as well as dozens of “priceless” hand-painted icons, also expressed disappointment that “neither provincial nor federal leaders had yet spoken out about the fire.” “It hurts,” she said, “to see no word from the government. I’m very, very much hoping for at least a statement from the premier to condemn what is happening.”
She shouldn’t hold her breath. Canada’s leaders couldn’t care less about yet another church burning to the ground. Before this Coptic church was burned, at least 50 other churches, mostly Catholic, a few Anglican, were also vandalized or torched in Canada. Here’s how Canada’s leading voices responded:
Harsha Walia, the head of British Columbia’s Civil Liberties Association—which claims to “promote, defend, sustain, and extend civil liberties and human rights”—tweeted: “Burn it all down.”
Prominent Newfoundland lawyer, Caitlin Urquhart, feels the same way—“Burn it all down.”
Heidi Mathews of Harvard Law School bizarrely described the vandalization and torching of churches as “the right of resistance to extreme and systemic injustice.”
As for the prime minister himself, Justin Trudeau, after offering the usual lip service and saying that ongoing church attacks are “unacceptable,” said: “I understand the anger that’s out there … against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real, and it is fully understandable given the shameful history that we’re all becoming more and more aware of.”
So attacks on Christian churches are “unacceptable”—but they’re also “understandable.” Considering that these two words neutralize each other, Trudeau’s stance is impotent, his words meaningless.
But why are they “understandable” in the first place? According to Canadian “mainstream” media—all of which are left of Left—unmarked graves of Natives were recently discovered by boarding schools, and the Catholic Church is being accused of killing them and trying to cover it up. The problem, however, is that this widely shared narrative appears to be inherently false (see here and here): These graves were once marked and therefore known, and most of those buried in them died of natural causes.
More specifically, the deaths mostly took place in the early 1800s. Apparently, some plague—epidemics were especially common back then—broke out in these church-sponsored boarding schools for natives, in part due to the prevailing hygiene and lack of proper medical treatment (in comparison to modern standards and technology).
At any rate, that the current accusation against the Catholic Church was always a pretext to justify anti-Christianism in general is amply demonstrated by this most recent torching of a Coptic Orthodox church: What on earth do the Copts, Egypt’s native Christians, who began migrating to Canada over a century after these graves were first dug, have to do with this issue?
Nothing, they just happen to be Christian—and that’s apparently all that matters, all that warrants hate crimes and indifference to them in Leftist Canada. Evil, after all, never needs an excuse to manifest itself, though a pretext always offers good cover.
Support Derek Sloan’s Fight for Personal Freedom & Democracy
Over the past 15 months, it has sometimes been difficult to fathom whether a Public Health COVID-19 policy has come about from rank ineptitude or abject tyranny.
In the case of COVID vaccines now being pushed on children as young as 12 who do not require parental consent to get one, it may be one, or it may be both, but it’s definitely utter madness and it must be stopped! Canadian children who have already had their lives ruined by lockdowns and restrictions are now having their health put at risk through coercion to take an experimental vaccine for a disease that poses virtually no threat to them at all. Many adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, in both adults and children, are now being registered in Canada and around the world.
Please sign my e-petitionto suspend these injections for children under the age of 18 until adequate, peer-reviewed, published studies featuring long-term data can establish that these injections are safe.
The health of the Canadian people isn’t the only thing that’s threatened by the reaction of the political class to COVID-19. Anyone who’s paying attention has to be concerned about the health of the country itself, as its one hundred and fifty-fourth birthday approaches.
On Tuesday, the House of Commons voted on whether or not to adopt a Bloc motion declaring it irresponsible to hold a federal election during COVID-19.The final vote was 330 to 1, in favour of the motion. I was the only one who cast a vote against it. Click here. I was also the only one to vote against Bill C-19 put forward by the Liberals to amend the Canada Elections Act, allowing for the use of mail in ballots. They don’t call me an independent MP for nothing.
I believe that the right thing is the right thing, no matter how many or how few people are doing it. I did the right thing in voting against that motion. Democracy is stronger than any virus, and any suspension of democracy, no matter how “temporary”, is the surest road to ensuring its permanent demise.
As real and frightening as the authoritarian threat to Canada’s traditions of democracy and freedom have been during this crisis, the truth is prevailing. Our U.S. neighbours, as they overcome irrational fear and return to normal life, are taking note.
Last Thursday, I appeared on ‘The Tipping Point with Kara McKinney’, on the One America News Network (OAN), reaching 35 million American homes. The response has been huge, and in large part it consists of Americans shocked to learn of the degree to which liberties have been trampled in the name of the “common good” up here in Canada.
It continues to be my privilege and honour to fight as hard as I can for those liberties. On Friday, I rose in the House to question the government on the glaring double standard that exists when it comes to peaceful protests in this country. To hear the non-answer I was given, click here. While those who attend freedom rallies are vilified, and receive court summonses and harassment from the police, other types of protests, including the one attended by Justin Trudeau last summer, are allowed to proceed unmolested.
Our Charter rights are the same for everyone. I’d like to know whether this government supports the rights of all Canadians or not. And if not, why not? Speaking of freedom rallies, I was lucky enough to have a busy Sunday full of them.
There were 1,000 people in Aylmer, hundreds in Woodstock, and over 3,000 in Waterloo.It’s truly wonderful to be part of this movement as it grows. This has been a harsh awakening, but more and more Canadians are waking up to the fact that we no longer live in a democracy.
Authoritarians are attempting to control every aspect of our lives through fear and coercion. More and more, Canadians are realizing how unethical it is to quarantine the healthy, to isolate children, to censor science, to shut down debate, and to destroy livelihoods. It’s immoral to spread fear and panic and to promote experimental injections as the necessary price tag for getting our freedoms back. Our freedoms were never theirs to take, and we must take them back, because they won’t be given.
All along, they’ve called us selfish for fighting against lockdowns. That’s the biggest lie of all. It’s not selfish to want to be free, it’s only human. Those who would take your freedom are the only selfish ones. The only rational and ethical thing to do now is to remove every single COVID-19 restriction and return to life and freedom again in Canada! That is what we must never stop fighting for. Join me, and we’ll fight together, and never stop until we win! God Bless You and God Bless Canada.
Protesters have been gathering at Queen’s Park in Toronto in front of the legislature for well over a year, and the protest on Saturday, May 15, was the largest showing since the demonstrations began in 2020.
Thousands, maybe even as many as 50,000, took to the park and streets to rally against the continuing lockdowns in Ontario. Neither the demonstrators, nor the residents in Toronto seem to be adhering to the recently-extended ‘Stay-at-Home’ order issued by Premier Doug Ford, as protesters gathered over the weekend for all types of events.
Whether it was pro-Palestine, pro-Israel or anti-lockdown demonstrations, no tickets appeared to be given in Toronto over the weekend for violating the government order. Simply looking around, the average person wasn’t adhering to the ‘rules’ either.
On May 16, 2021 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (when talking about Israel/Palestine protests) mentioned that all have the right to protest; something that provincial orders have contradicted for many months: https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-
However, Canadian politicians have recently been chiming in on pro-freedom demonstrations, with Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi claiming they are “thinly veiled” in “white supremacy.” https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also believes this is part of “extreme right-wing ideology,” connecting such viewpoints due to protesters “brazenly not follow[ing] public-health guidelines,” as he recently told reporters.
The overwhelming response from protesters was that this is likely an attempt to divide while diminishing the true meaning behind the protest.
None of the demonstrators interviewed mentioned they had ever heard any race-related discussions at the events, nor did they believe that to be the thesis of anyone or anything they experienced since attending the get-togethers.
I have never thought very highly of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was added to our constitution in 1982. Note the wording there. The Charter is not itself our constitution but merely a part of it and a late addition at that. Those who make the mistake of calling the Charter itself our constitution have bought in to the American superstition that a constitution is a piece of paper that keeps a government from going bad through its magical powers. A constitution is a country’s system of law and government, the institutions that comprise it, and the traditions that inform their motions. The largest part of it is unwritten and this is true even in the American republic. Documents like our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the one the Americans call their Constitution are merely parts of the Canadian and American constitutions respectively. They are the laws that define and set limits to the power of government institutions. They have no power to keep government within those limits apart from the loyalty of those who hold public office in obeying them, the willingness of the courts to uphold them, and the faithful vigilance of the public.
My low estimation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not because I don’t like the rights and freedoms that are listed in that document. With a few exceptions, such as the “equality rights” written in Animal Farm style doublespeak in Section 15, these are rights and freedoms that I consider to be among the most valuable elements of our Common Law tradition. It is rather because the Charter has made these rights and freedoms less secure rather than more. In part this is due to flaws in the Charter itself such as the “notwithstanding clause” in Section 33 and the broad loophole in Section 1 which effectually nullify the Charter as far as the whole point of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, that is to say that they are supposed to limit what the government can do so as to protect us from the abusive exercise of its powers, goes. The Charter’s loopholes and exceptions protect the government instead of us and for this reason former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was right to say that it is not worth the paper it is written on. It is also, however, because the Charter has encouraged a way of thinking about our rights and freedoms in a way that is the fundamental opposite of that which has historically belonged to our Common Law and traditional institutions of constitutional monarchy and parliament. It encourages us to think of our rights and freedoms as privileges bestowed upon us by government to be limited or taken away by government freely as it sees fit, rather than our own property.
The consequences of this way of thinking having become pervasive have been most evident over the course of the last year. Section 2 of the Charter identifies four freedoms as being fundamental. The first of these is freedom of conscience and religion. The third is the freedom of peaceful assembly. The fourth is the freedom of association. The whole point, remember, of having the Charter designate these freedoms as essential is to place limits on government power, to tell the government that it must keep its hands off of these things. Yet ever since the World Health Organization declared the spread of the Wuhan bat flu to be a pandemic last March, our provincial governments have treated these freedoms as if they were completely non-existent, much less fundamental and protected by constitutional law and the Dominion government has constantly been urging the provincial governments to clamp down on us in violation of these freedoms in even more severe ways.
In 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of R v Oakes. David Oakes had been arrested with drugs in his possession and under what was then Section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act was presumed to be guilty of trafficking. He challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 on the grounds that it violated the presumption of innocence, a civil right spelled out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter and which had been long established as part of the Common Law tradition. That the provision of the NCA being challenged did indeed violate the civil right in question was easily demonstrated, but the Court then had to decide whether the violation was justifiable under the “reasonable limits” loophole in Section 1 of the Charter. The Court’s ruling established what has ever since been the litmus test for this question. The Court ruled that for a law which violates a Charter right or freedom to be justifiable under the “reasonable limits” clause, it first had to have a “pressing and substantial” goal. Second, it had to meet the three qualifications of a) being “rationally connected” to the goal of the law, b) only impairing the rights and freedoms in question minimally, and c) not overwhelming the benefit hoped to be achieved with its negative effects.
It is quite obvious that the public health measures fail to meet the second of the three qualifications of the second part of the Supreme Court’s Oakes’ test. When the public health officer tells you that you cannot have any visitors to your home, even if you meet outside, as is currently the case in Manitoba, he is clearly not trying to only “minimally impair” your freedom of association. What he is doing is disregarding freedom of association entirely. The provincial legislature is not allowed to do this constitutionally, nor can it delegate to the public health officer the authority to do so. The legislature cannot delegate what it does not legitimately possess itself. When the public health officer orders churches, synagogues, and mosques not to meet for the largest part of a year, cancels the most important festivals of these religions, and only permits re-opening at a severely reduced capacity that requires churches to betray the tenets of their own faith and turn worshippers away, he is similarly disregarding freedom of conscience and religion rather than making sure that his orders only “minimally impair” this freedom. There is also plenty of evidence that the public health orders fail to meet the third qualification of the Oakes’ test as well. The costs of lockdowns, measured in the destruction of lives due to the breakdown of mental health and the rise in substance abuse and suicides, the erosion of community and social capital, and the devastation of businesses and livelihoods, has been tremendous and far exceeds any questionable benefits of these insane, unjust, evil and oppressive restrictions. Indeed, I believe the case could be made that the public health measures fail every single element of the Oakes’ test.
The provincial governments have gotten away with all this stercus tauri because they have until fairly recently met with only minimal resistance on the part of the Canadian public. This can be attributed to a number of causes. One of these, of course, is the hysterical and irrational fear generated by the mainstream corporate media that have been deceitfully and despicably portraying a virus that produces no to mild symptoms in most people who contract it, from which the vast majority of people who actually do get sick recover, and which in many if not most jurisdictions has an average age of fatality that is higher than the average expected lifespan of the general public, as if it were the second coming of the bubonic plague. Another cause is the new attitude which has been encouraged among Canadians, especially by the Liberals, since 1982, of regarding our rights and freedoms as privileges bestowed upon us by the government in the Charter rather than what they are, our lawful property as free subjects of the Crown which it is the government’s duty to respect.
The assault on our freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, and association have come from the provincial governments. At the same time the second of the four freedoms designated as fundamental in the Charter has come under attack from the Liberals who are in power in the Dominion government. This is the freedom of “thought, belief, opinion and expression”. Whereas our freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, and association have never been this besieged before in Canadian history, our freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression has taken hits every time the Liberal Party led by a Trudeau has come to power in Ottawa. It has been less than ten years since we finally got rid of one of the vilest elements of Pierre Trudeau’s legacy, the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. While the entire Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 is, in fact, an affront to freedom of thought because, despite its title, it has nothing to do with protecting our rights either as Canadians or human beings from government abuses, but is instead all about prohibiting the crimethink of discrimination on the part of individual Canadians, Section 13 was the Act’s worst provision by far. By defining any electronic communication of information “likely to” expose someone protected against discrimination “to hatred or contempt” as an act of discrimination it in effect forbade all negative criticism of groups protected against discrimination or individuals belonging to such groups, regardless of the truthfulness or justice of the criticism in question.
Section 13 was finally abolished during the premiership of Stephen Harper thanks to a private member’s bill repealing the foul section that received enough support from Conservative MPs and Liberal MPs of the pre-Trudeau variety – these had not yet been purged from the party – to pass Parliament. Neither Stephen Harper nor his Minister of Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, who is currently overseeing the throwing of pastors in gaol and the barricading of churches in Alberta, had much to do with this for although they had spoken out against Human Rights Tribunals and their unjust infringement upon freedom of thought and speech on their road to power, in office they betrayed most of what they had once stood for, apparently having sold their souls to get there. The demise of Section 13 has long been lamented by Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, and when he became Prime Minister in 2015 he dropped a number of hints that he would be seeking to revive it. The appeal of Section 13 to Captain Airhead was based on more than just the fact that it had been originally introduced when his father was in power. More than any previous Liberal leader, Captain Airhead has been of the mindset that once a progressive goal has been attained, all debate about it ought to cease. This was evident even before he became Prime Minister when he purged the party of its pro-life members. More than any previous Liberal leader, he has enthusiastically endorsed fringe progressive causes that could not possibly achieve widespread popular support on their own merits without measures that intimidate and suppress dissenters. More than any previous Liberal leader he has been prone to tell Canadians who disagree with him that they are not welcome in their own country. He has used the expression “there is no place for X in Canada” far more liberally than any previous leader and with a much wider range of Xs. (1) In all of this he has demonstrated the sort of sick, censorious, mindset to which something like Section 13 appeals. In December of 2019, after he won re-election in the sense that he managed to squeak out a plurality despite falling majorly in the polls from where he had been four years previously, he instructed his Cabinet that fighting online “hate speech” would be one of their priorities in the new session of Parliament. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault was specifically charged with finding a way to force social media platforms to remove what the Liberals consider to be “hate speech” within twenty-four hours of being told by the government to do so. This would be Section 13 magnified to the nth degree.
In response to this directive, Guilbeault came up with a bill that pursued the same goal as Section 13 through a different avenue. Last November he introduced Bill C-10, or “An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act” into Parliament. This bill if passed would place internet media under the same regulatory authority of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as older electronic media such as radio and television broadcasters. By going this route, Guilbeault could maintain that his goal was not to censor what individual Canadians post on the internet, but to ensure that the companies that make shows and movies available through online streaming follow the same Canadian content guidelines as other broadcasters, a goal consistent with his portfolio as Heritage Minister. That having been said, the Bill as originally drafted would have given the CRTC regulatory authority over individual Canadians’ user-generated content on social media. When objections to this were raised the Bill was amended to include an exception for individual user-generated content, but this exception was removed in committee late last month around the same time that the government moved to shut down debate on a motion that the Conservatives had introduced calling for a review of whether or not the bill violated the Charter. None of this inspires much confidence in the Heritage Minister’s claim that the aim of this bill is cultural protectionism and not censorship of thought. On Monday, faced with backlash over all of this, Guilbeault promised that they would make it “crystal clear” that the user-generated content will not be subjected to the same sort of regulatory control as television programming. Needless to say, he ought not to be taken at his word on this. Indeed, Michael Geist, the law professor at the University of Ottawa who has been one of the foremost critics of Bill C-10, has already said that the amendment the Heritage Committee proposed on Thursday evening fails to follow through on Guilbeault’s promises.
It is worth observing here that with Bill C-10, Captain Airhead and Steven Guilbeault have returned to the very first thing the original Trudeau Liberals did to control the minds of Canadians and limit their freedom of thought. At the very beginning of the first Trudeau premiership the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker pointed out how the Liberals were threatening freedom of thought through the powers of the CRTC. In a speech entitled “The Twilight of Liberty”, the second included in the collection Those Things We Treasure (Macmillan, 1972), Diefenbaker said:
The Trudeau Government seems to be dedicated to controlling the thinking of Canadians. Through the power being exerted by Pierre Juneau, as Chairman of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, (2) private radio and T.V. station proprietors in Canada are frightened to speak, fearful of being subject to the cancellation of their licences. One such station was CKPM in Ottawa, which dared to have an open line program critical of the Government. Pierre Juneau did come before a Committee of the House and he uttered lachrymose words in reply to the criticism leveled at him that he wishes to determine what Canadians shall hear, and to deny them the right to listen to what they will. His attitude was different when he spoke to the Association of Private Broadcasting Companies and in effect stated: “When I ope my lips, let no dog bark.” Under him the broadcasting network owned by the people of Canada is allowed to broadcast what he permits.
Diefenbaker’s warning of decades ago has gone largely unheeded, perhaps because the CRTC’s official raison d’être is cultural protectionism which appeals to a much broader range of Canadians than its more covert purpose of limiting freedom of thought. Certainly right-of-centre Canadians of the more traditional variety, such as Diefenbaker himself or this writer, would have no objections to the idea that Canadian culture ought to remain Canadian. It needs to be pointed out, however, that the CRTC has been a total failure in this regards. Fifty-three years later, the Canada of 2021 is far more Americanized culturally than the Canada of 1968 was. Indeed, much of what Canadians regard as distinctly “Canadian” culture today, is merely Hollywood culture with a maple leaf stamped on it. Read the novels of Mazo de la Roche and Robertson Davies if you want a taste of the more authentic pre-CRTC Canadian culture. Since the CRTC failed in its official appointed task, probably because its real purpose was thought control all along, there is hardly grounds here for extending its reach over the new online media. Indeed, the scarcely disguised agenda of censorship and thought control behind the move to so extend its reach, is sufficient reason why this bill, amended or otherwise, must never be allowed to pass. It is also more than sufficient reason for voting the Trudeau Liberals who dreamed it up in the first place out of Parliament and never allowing them to resume power again. For as Rex Murphy pointed out earlier this week, “What is more galling and more threatening that the bill itself, however, is the set of mind behind it”, and that won’t go away even if the bill itself does.
(1) Disturbingly, the leaders of the other parties – including the present leader of the Conservatives – have taken to aping his example in this.
(2) The full name of this agency was changed into the awkward and absurd redundancy that it is now in 1976, but the acronym remains the same. Posted by Gerry T. Neal
Bars are open but not many Christian churches in Canada. Paul Fromm describes the targeting of Christians. 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
Brian Bowman, the current mayor of the city in which I reside, Winnipeg, the capital city of the Province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada, is not a man noted for his intelligence. Indeed, as far as I can tell, he is noted for only two things. The first is his close resemblance in physical appearance to Jon Cryer, the actor who before he took on the role of Alan, the anal-retentive loser brother of Charlie, the drunken letch portrayed by Charlie Sheen on Three and a Half Men was best known for playing “Duckie” in the John Hughes film Pretty in Pink. I have long suspected that this is the real reason he was elected. If only a Charlie Sheen look-a-like- had run against him. Or, better yet, Charlie Sheen himself. Yes, Sheen has been struggling with a lot of personal demons in recent years, but the late Rob Ford struggled with many of those same demons in the city formerly known as York and he was the best mayor in the whole Dominion at the time. His brother Doug rose to the premiership of Upper Canada on his posthumous coattails although Doug has subsequently proven himself unworthy of the Rob Ford mantle. The second thing for which Bowman is noted is his act of hysterical wailing and hand-wringing over the evils of racism. Unlike the problems that Rob Ford and Charlie Sheen struggled with, this precludes one from being an excellent, or even a good mayor. Bowman’s example of the performance art of racially “woke” virtue-signaling is second to none in Canada, not even that of Captain Airhead himself, although Captain Airhead, who is also the country’s foremost blackface artist, retains the championship title for hypocrisy.
Bowman has declared this week to be Winnipeg’s first “Anti-Racism Week”. The official theme of the week’s events is “What would Winnipeg look like without racism?” If the organizers of this pompous display of left-wing pseudo-piety, including our feckless, inept and dimwitted mayor, were ever to learn the answer to this question, they would be horrified.
A Winnipeg without racism would be a Winnipeg in which people were no longer treated differently from others because of their skin colour or the place of origin of their ancestors. This means, among other things, that in a Winnipeg without racism, people with white skin colour, whose ancestors came from Europe and the British Isles, would no longer be treated as if they all shared a collective guilt for racism while people of all other skin colours and ancestry are treated as if they shared a collective innocent victimhood of racism. This is pretty much the opposite of what Bowman et al. envision a “Winnipeg without racism” as looking like.
While all these people who wear their “Anti-Racism” in prominent display on their sleeves like to adopt the stance of Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru towards racism that is directed against white people, such racism is not difficult to find. Earlier this week, all sorts of left-wing personalities found themselves with egg on their faces as they rushed to delete all the tweets and other social media posts in which they had spouted off about the evil, racist, white man who had shot up a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, killing ten people, before it was revealed that the shooter was a Syrian refugee who liked to rant on the internet about the evils of racism, Islamophobia, and Donald Trump. They had, of course, assumed the shooter was a white man in the vernacular sense of the term rather than the technical sense in which physical anthropology classifies East Indians and Arabs as part of the Caucasian race. This assumption was based upon a stereotype, the type of assumption they would have been the first to condemn had somebody mistakenly assumed the perpetrator of an inner-city mugging to be black or mistakenly assumed the culprit in some major financial swindle to be Jewish.
If you think the above example to be of a relatively minor form of racism consider this next example from last week. This too pertained to comments made about a mass murder, in this case the shooting spree that a sex addict had gone on in the massage parlours of Atlanta, Georgia on the sixteenth of this month. Since most of the people killed in this earlier massacre had been prostitutes of various East Asian ethnicities many had speculated that the crime had a racial motivation although the evidence seems to be against this interpretation of the event. One person who ran with this interpretation was Damon Young, co-founder of the blog Very Smart Brothas which operates under the umbrella of the older black e-zine The Root, and author of the 2019 book What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Blacker. In a post on the seventeenth entitled “Whiteness is a Pandemic”, Young declared “whiteness” to be a “public health crisis” and “white supremacy” to be a virus which “will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it and kill it.” This is eliminationist language, the language of genocide, and the argument that seeks to explain this away as talking about “white supremacy”, a system, idea, or ideology rather than people is completely invalidated by the fact that Young uses “whiteness” and “white supremacy” interchangeably throughout his rant. Would-be defenders of Young might attempt to point to this usage as indicating that by “whiteness” Young means the system or ideology of white supremacy rather than “the condition of being white” as the term would be more naturally understood. Nobody, however, would accept that kind of reasoning as being valid in excusing the use of this sort of language in connection with “blackness” or any other “ness” other than whiteness.
This use of “whiteness”, a term that naturally suggests the condition of being fair skinned and of British or European descent, as if it was the designation of a system set up to limit power to white people and oppress all others, is not original with Young. This has been standard usage on the campuses of academe for decades now where it has always been accompanied by either calls for genocide that are cleverly excused as demands for the abolition of an unjust system or demands for the redress of racial grievances, real and otherwise, that are irresponsibly worded in eliminationist rhetoric, depending upon how much grace one wishes to extend to those, such as the late Noel Ignatiev, who use this kind of language in one’s interpretation of their motives. The University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg, both located in this city, are no exceptions to this, and, indeed, some might argue that they are among the worst universities in Canada for this sort of thing. That they are not among the first campuses that come to mind when this subject comes up is due to a dearth of high-profile incidents connected with these schools, which itself can be attributed to the national media not particularly caring about anything that goes on in Winnipeg.
The closest to a high-profile incident took place two and a half years ago when somebody put up signs saying “It’s okay to be white” on walls around the University of Manitoba. The CBC reported on this under the headline “Hate messages show up on the University of Manitoba campus”. Immediately beneath the headline is the sentence “Many students say they feel unsafe due to threatening nature of messages, union says”. Both the headline and this sentence were plainly nonsensical. The words “It’s okay to be white” make a simple, positive, assertion about white people. They do not express hatred of people who are not white or threaten people who are not white. They don’t say anything about people who are not white at all. To reject the statement “it’s okay to be white” is to affirm its negative counterpart “it’s not okay to be white”, and to affirm the latter is itself a racist act, because to say that it is not okay to be white is just as racist as to say that it is not okay to be black or to be any other race. Indeed, it is not just racist but racist of the genocidal or eliminationist type. While the left has recently decided that sex is no longer an immutable aspect of human reality, that people must choose or discover for themselves whether they are male, female or some other option, and that it is a horrible offense to reject a person’s own gender self-identification and stick to the older reality of sex, they have not yet applied the same lack of reasoning to race and so being white or black or whatever is still, for them as much as for rational people, something one does not choose, is born with, and cannot change, unless, perhaps, one is Michael Jackson, and so, the statement that it is not okay to be white is followed logically by the statement that white people must be eliminated. All of this is very obvious and all of the people cited in the CBC article – a student, an associate professor in the department of Native Studies, the head of the same department, the Students’ Union president, and the university president avoid all discussion of the actual content of the text of the posters they were denouncing. Their arguments – if you can call them that – were basically of either the “these posters are bad because they made me feel bad” or the “these posters are bad because bad people put them up” varieties. The lengthy quotation from University of Manitoba president David Barnard’s diatribe denouncing the posters left a very poor impression of the man’s intelligence and integrity. In reporting this sort of drivel, the CBC actually managed to compromise what little had remained up to that point of its journalistic standards.
Neither the explicitly eliminationist anti-whiteness rhetoric on campus nor the equation of even the simplest positive assertion about white people with hatred and threats towards non-white people appears to be of much concern to Brian Bowman and it is unlikely that his vision of a Winnipeg without racism would exclude these forms of racism. The only racism that he seems to recognize is racism directed towards BIPOC groups and even then only if it is perpetrated by whites and not by other BIPOC groups. This makes his anti-racism into something of a farce.
In Winnipeg, the emphasis of anti-racists like Bowman is on racism directed towards Native Indians. Indeed, Bowman who is white as a lily, identifies as Métis, in much the same way that Elizabeth Warren identifies as an Indian (a distant ancestor on his mother’s side was Cree). When he gave an interview about this at the beginning of his mayoral career his remarks seemed oddly racially condescending. He mentioned his mother making bannock and his getting into a fight at school over it when he was a kid almost as if these were his credentials for his racial self-identification. Many would consider this to be akin to pointing to one’s love of fried chicken and watermelon as proof of one’s blackness. In January of this year, he jumped on board the bandwagon of the “Not My Siloam” movement that sought, ultimately successfully, to remove Jim Bell as CEO of Siloam Mission, on the grounds that under his leadership the Christian homeless shelter had not done enough to promote Native Spirituality, a new religion invented in the late twentieth century that bears approximately the same relationship to the religions of the pre-evangelized Native Indians as Wicca, the twentieth century religion founded by Gerald Gardner, bears to the pre-Christian paganism of Britain and Europe. It would be interesting to know just how deeply Bowman looked into the facts of this “scandal” before getting involved. Did he ever learn, for example, that the font of most of the accusations against Bell was a disgruntled, ex-employee of Siloam, who had earned for herself a reputation within not just Siloam but the broader community of outreach to the homeless and indigent of extreme bigotry towards those who were not Native Indians, especially fair-skinned Christians of European ancestry, people of whom she seemed unable to speak without the use of pejoratives? I suspect the answer is no. Bowman’s most publicized initiative with regards to Native Indians has been his Indigenous heritage initiative. It consists of little more than looking into changing certain place names and altering the wording on certain historical markers. David Chartrand, the leader of the Manitoba Métis Federation was quoted by the Winnipeg Sun last month as being totally unimpressed, both by Bowman’s initiative and by the Year Zero, Cultural Maoist, monument toppling that was the context in which it was announced.
In recent months the broader North American anti-racist movement has been emphasizing racism directed towards “Asians”, a designation that lumps together certain nationalities from Asia on purely racial grounds despite the fact that these nationalities have historically hated each other and would have found the thought of being to be lumped together in a common identity with the others as utterly repulsive.
Needless to say, racism against Native Indians and racism against Asians are the types of racism that have been talked about most this week. The most interesting detail about these types of racism, however, has been conspicuously absent from the discussion. That detail is that explicit and outspoken racial animosity towards those of the ethnicities designated as Asian is far easier to find among Native Indians than among whites, and explicit statements of contempt for Native Indians are far easier to find among people of Asian ancestry than among whites The reason for this omission is easy to see – it doesn’t fit well into the narrative of Anti-Racism Week about how whites and only whites are the bad guys who are guilty of racism and all others are victims who must unite in solidarity against their common oppressors.
That narrative is total bunk, and therefore so is Anti-Racism Week.
Is it too late to draft Charlie Sheen to replace Brian Bowman as mayor of Winnipeg?POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL AT 6:09 AM LABELS:
It is less than two months since I posted an essay entitled “Death and Doctors” that discussed how in the depravity of modern progressive liberalism those who are supposed to have dedicated their lives to healing disease and injury, alleviating pain and suffering, and saving lives are now expected to take the lives of the vulnerable at either end of the lifecycle through abortion or physician assisted suicide. As I pointed out in that essay, both of these practices were against the law throughout most of Canadian history and the latter practice was only legalized quite recently. It was in 2014 that Lower Canada – Quebec to those who are vulgarly up-to-date – became the first province to legalize physician assisted suicide and in February of 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada once again flexed the shiny new muscle that Pierre Trudeau had given them in 1982 by striking down the law against physician assisted suicide in its Carter ruling. The Court placed a one year delay on this ruling coming into effect in order to give Parliament time to fix the issues with the law which the Court considered to be constitutionally problematic. The Liberals, however, won a majority government in the Dominion election that year and so passed Bill C-14 instead, which completely legalized the practice and, indeed, allowed for physicians under certain circumstances, to go beyond assisting in suicide and actively terminate the lives themselves. Note that while I would like to think that had Harper’s Conservatives remained in power the outcome would have been different, I am not so naïve as to be certain of that. Indeed, the week after the Carter ruling, I had discussed how the Conservatives appeared to be preparing to capitulate on this issue in “Stephen Fletcher, the Byfields, and the Failure of Canada’s New Right”.
Now, one might be tempted to think that with regards to the issue of physician assisted suicide there is not much further in the wrong direction that our government could have gone than Bill C-14. One would be very wrong in thinking so, however, as the government has just demonstrated.
On February 24th of last year, a few weeks before the World Health Organization hit the panic button because a new virus that is significantly dangerous only to the very sorts of people most likely to be on the receiving end of euthanasia had escaped from China and was making the rounds of the world, Captain Airhead’s Liberals introduced Bill C-7 in the House of Commons. David Lametti, who became Justice Minister and Attorney General after Jody Wilson-Raybould was removed from this position for refusing to go along with the Prime Minister’s corruption, was the sponsor. The aim of the bill was to make it easier for those who wanted what they are now calling “Medical Assistance In Dying” or MAID – in my opinion the acronym produced by the old convention of leaving out words of three letters or less would be more apt – but were not already on death’s door to obtain it.
As bad as the original draft of Bill C-7 was, it has undergone revisions over the course of the year since its first reading that make it much worse. The most controversial revision is the one that includes a provision that is set to come into effect two years after the bill passes into law and which would allow access to the procedure to those who are neither at death’s door nor experiencing extreme physical pain and suffering but only have severe mental or psychological conditions. Since it could be easily argued that wanting to terminate one’s own life constitutes such a condition – I suspect the vast majority of people would see it as such – the revised version of Bill C-7 looks suspiciously like it is saying that eventually everyone who wants a physician’s assistance in committing suicide for whatever reason will be entitled to that assistance.
Last week the revised bill passed the House of Commons after the Grits, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, invoked closure on the debate and forced a vote. Since the bill will eventually make euthanasia available to those with merely psychological problems, why exactly the Bloc would support a bill with the potential to drastically reduce the numbers of their voters remains a mystery. Jimmy Dhaliwal, or rather Jagmeet Singh to call him by his post-transition name as we would hate to mis-whatever anyone, announced that the NDP would not support the bill. This should not be mistaken for an example of principled opposition to physician assisted suicide for the mentally ill, it was rather an example of voting the right way for the wrong reason – Singh’s rabid hatred of Canada’s traditional constitution. In my last essay I pointed out how he, in marked contrast with the more popular and sane man who led his party ten years ago, has taken aim against the office of Her Majesty the Queen and wishes to turn the country into some sort of lousy people’s republic. Here it is his problem with the Upper Chamber of Parliament that is relevant. He did not like that some of the revisions were introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. As for that august body, the Senate passed the bill yesterday, by a vote of 60-25 with five abstentions. This is easily enough explained. Yesterday was St. Patrick’s Day, and even though the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought, its members were probably drunk. The only mystery here is, with apologies to the Irish Rovers, whether it was the whiskey, the gin, or the three-or-four six packs.
A little under a year before Bill C-7 was introduced, it was announced in the federal budget that that the Dominion government would be spending $25 million dollars over a five year period to develop a nation-wide suicide prevention service. In the fall of last year, after the information began to come out about just how badly the insane and unsuccessful experiment in locking down society to prevent the spread of a virus had affected the mental health of Canadians driving suicide rates through the roof, the government announced that it would be investing $11.5 million towards suicide prevention for “marginalized communities” that had been disproportionately affected by this mental health crisis, which they, of course, blamed on the virus rather than on their own tyrannical suspension of everyone’s basic rights, freedoms, and social lives. Apparently the government cannot see any contradiction between prioritizing suicide prevention and providing easily available assistance in taking one’s own life.
By funding suicide prevention programs the government would seem to be taking the side in the ancient ethical debate that says that suicide is a bad thing and that it is wrong to take your own life. The strongest version of this ethical position has traditionally been that of Christian moral theology. Suicide, in Christian ethics, is not merely a violation of the Sixth Commandment, as the Commandments are numbered by the Jews, the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants, but a particularly bad violation of this Commandment because it leaves no room for earthly repentance and is an expression of despair, the abandonment of faith and hope in God. In other traditions, suicide is generally frowned upon but in a less absolute way. In some traditions suicide brings shame upon the memory and family of the person who commits it except under a specific set of circumstances in which case it accomplishes the opposite of this by erasing shame that the individual had already brought upon himself and his family through his disgraceful actions, shame which could only be expunged in this manner. It is easier to reconcile these traditions with each other – preserving one’s family honour is a very different motivation from despair – than it is to reconcile either with physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide in no way resembles what would have been considered an honourable suicide in any pagan tradition. In Christian ethics, since taking your own life is so bad, getting someone else to help you do it or do it for you is downright diabolical.
Perhaps the very worst thing about Bill C-7 is that gives even more power to the medical profession. The liberalization of the Criminal Code in 1969 and the Morgentaler decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 gave doctors the power of life and death over the unborn. This was already too much power, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carter in 2015 and the passing of Bill C-14 the following year gave them similar power over the elderly and infirm. Last year, the Dominion government and every provincial government gave their top doctors dictatorial power over all Canadians, allowing them to suspend all of the basic Common Law rights and freedoms that are the traditional property of all of Her Majesty’s subjects regardless of Charter protections, power which they proceeded to disgracefully abuse as they gleefully and sadistically traded the serpentine staff of Asclepius for the Orwellian symbol of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Now, Bill C-7 is extending their power of life and death even further in a most irresponsible way. Physician assisted suicide is the foot in the door for outright euthanasia or “mercy killing”, extending the availability of the former to people who are not already dying will lead inevitably to doctors being allowed to perform the latter on those who are not already dying, and since it is doctors who get to say what is and what is not illness, mental or otherwise, the ultimate effect of this bill is to give the medical profession total and unlimited power of life and death over every Canadian. Nobody should be trusted with that kind of power, least of all the medical profession as their behaviour over the last twelve months demonstrates. Indeed, the disgrace they have brought upon their profession by their tyranny and their callous disregard for the social, psychological, spiritual and economic harm they have done with their universal quarantines, mask mandates and social distancing is such, that even seppuku on the part of all non-dissenting physicians may prove insufficient to restore their professional honour. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:46 AM
In the 2011 Dominion election, under the leadership of Jack Layton, the New Democratic Party which is the officially socialist party, as opposed to the unofficial socialist parties such as the Liberals and the Conservatives, won the highest percentage of the popular vote and the most number of seats it has ever received. While the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, won the election and formed a majority government, Layton’s NDP won enough seats to become Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, a role which, during Conservative governments, had always before been held by the Liberals. While the unpopularity of Grit leader Michael Ignatieff undoubtedly contributed to this, it was clearly a credit to the charismatic leadership of Layton himself. Sadly, he was not able to perform the role of Official Opposition Leader for long. Cancer forced him to step down from his duties and in August of that year took his life.
In the 2019 Dominion election, by contrast, the NDP’s percentage of the popular vote fell drastically, and it moved from third party to fourth party status as it lost twenty seats from the forty-four it had won four years previous. What is very interesting about this is that this was the same election in which the Liberal government dropped from majority to minority government status. The Liberal drop was not difficult to explain – the year had begun with the government rocked by the SNC-Lavalin scandal and during the election campaign itself another scandal, which would have utterly destroyed anyone else, broke, as multiple photographs and even a video of the Prime Minister, who had marketed himself as the “woke” Prime Minister, in blackface surfaced. What was surprising was not that the Liberals dropped in the popular vote and lost seats, but that they managed to squeak out a plurality and cling to power. This makes it all the more damning that the New Democrats, ordinarily the second choice for progressive Liberal voters, did so poorly in this election.
Just as most of the credit for the NDP’s success in 2011 belonged to its late leader Jack Layton, so most of the blame for its failure in 2019 belongs to its current leader, Jagmeet Singh. Despite the efforts of the CBC and its echo chambers in the “private” media to promote his brand, Singh, was clearly unpalatable to the Canadian public. Whereas a competent politician who finds himself unpopular with the electorate would ask what it is about himself that is turning off the voters and try to change it, Singh is the type who declares that the problem is with the electorate, that they are too prejudiced, and demands that they change. That this attitude, indicative of the kind of far Left politics Singh embraces – he is the furthest to the Left any mainstream party leader has ever been in Canadian politics – is itself a large part of what turns the voters off, is a fact that eluded him, continues to elude him, and will probably elude him forever.
That the contrast could hardly be greater between the late Jack Layton and Jagmeet Singh received another illustration this week.
On Sunday, a much hyped interview between Oprah Winfrey and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was televised. I did not watch the interview, as I make it a point of avoiding Oprah who, in my opinion, has done more than anybody else to turn people’s minds to mush, despite having a book club named after her. The Sussexes consist of Meghan Markle, an ambitious American actress, and her husband, the younger son of the Prince of Wales. Last year, you might recall, this couple was all over the news before they got pre-empted by the bat flu, because Markle, who obviously is the one wearing the pants between the two of them, having learned that unlike the Hollywood celebrity to which she had aspired, royalty comes with public duties as well as privilege, duties which do not include, and indeed conflict with, the favourite Hollywood celebrity pastime of shooting one’s mouth off, no matter how ill-informed one is, about every trendy, woke, cause, wanted to keep the royal privileges while giving up the royal duties, and was told, quite rightly, by the Queen, that this was not the way things were done. The couple left the UK in a huff, stopping temporarily in Canada before they eventually relocated to the United States. As I said, I did not watch the interview, but have caught enough of the highlights of it and the post-interview commentary to know that it was basically Markle throwing herself a “me party” and hurling mud at her inlaws and the ancient institution they represent, for not making everything all about her.
Sane, rational, people surely realize that interviews of this sort speak far more about the spoiled, egotistical, narcissism of the individuals who give such interviews than they do about the people and institutions criticized in such interviews. People like Jagmeet Singh, however, regard them as opportunities to promote their own agendas.
Singh, actually succeeded in making the current Prime Minister look classy by comparison, something which is exceedingly difficult to do. The only comment the Prime Minister made following the interview was to say “I wish all members of the Royal Family the very best”. Singh, however, ranted about how he doesn’t “see the benefit of the monarchy in Canadians’ lives”. As with Markle’s interview this comment says far more about the person who made it than the institution he seeks to denigrate.
To fail to see the benefit of the monarchy in Canadians’ lives is to fail to see any benefit to Canadians in a) having their country remain true to her founding principles, b) having a non-political head of state, or c) having an institutional connection to the United Kingdom, Australia, and the other Commonwealth Realms that in no way impedes our country’s sovereignty over her own domestic affairs and international relationships. To fail to see any benefit in any of this is to display one’s own blindness.
That Canada’s founding principles require her to retain the monarchy is an understatement. Loyalty to the monarchy is the founding principle of Canada, at least if by Canada we mean the country that was founded in 1867. Quebec nationalists like to point out that Canada was first used for the French society founded along the St. Lawrence long before Confederation, which is true enough, but the conclusions they draw from this are contradictory non-sequiturs. At any rate, the original French Canada was, most certainly, a society under a monarch, the monarchy of France, and, contrary to the delusions of the Quebec nationalists who are products of the “Quiet Revolution” (against traditional, Roman Catholic, Quebecois society and culture), it was not moving in the direction of the French Revolution when the French king ceded Canada to the British king after the Seven Years War, a fact that is evinced by Quebec’s remaining ultramontane in its Catholicism and seigneurial in its society long after the Jacobins had done their worst in France. Before Confederation began the process of uniting all of British North America into the Dominion of Canada in 1867 – the Canada we speak of as Canada today – an English Canada, in addition to a French Canada, had come into existence, and this English Canada grew out of the United Empire Loyalists, that is to say, those among the Thirteen Colonies which revolted against Britain and become the United States who remained loyal to the Crown, and fled to Canada to escape persecution in the new republic. They were able to flee to Canada because French Canada, although the ink was barely dry on the treaty transferring Canada from the French king to the British, did not join in the American Revolution against the Crown which had, to the upset of the American colonists, guaranteed its protection of their culture, language and religion. During Confederation, the Fathers of Confederation, English and French, unanimously chose to retain a connection to the larger British Empire and to make the Westminster system of parliamentary monarchy our own (it was Canada’s own Fathers of Confederation, not the Imperial government in London, who brought all of this into the Confederation talks, and, indeed, when the Fathers of Confederation wished to call the country “The Kingdom of Canada”, London’s input was to suggest an alternative title, leading to the choice of “The Dominion of Canada’). It is the Crown that is the other party to all of the treaties with the native tribes, who generally, and for good cause, respect the monarchy a lot more than they do the politicians in Parliament. At several points in Canadian history, both on the road to Confederation, such as in the War of 1812, and after Confederation, such as in both World Wars, English Canadians, French Canadians, and native Canadians fought together for “king and country”. The monarchy has been the uniting principle in Canada throughout our history. To reject the monarchy is to reject Canada.
That anybody in March of 2021 could fail to see the benefit of having a non-political head of state demonstrates the extent to which ideology can blind a person. Four years ago, the American republic had an extremely divisive presidential election after which the side that lost refused to acknowledge the outcome, spent much of four years accusing the winner of colluding with a foreign power – Russia – to steal the election, and giving its tacit and in some cases explicit approval to violent groups that were going around beating people up, using intimidation to shut down events, and rioting, because they considered the new American president to be a fascist. Last year, they held another presidential election which was even more divisive, with a very high percentage of Americans believing the election was stolen through fraud, with the consequence that Congress had to order a military occupation of their own capital city in order to protect the inauguration of the new president against their own citizens. This is precisely the sort of thing that naturally ensues from filling the office of head of state through popular election, politicizing an office that is supposed to be unifying and representative of an entire country. This is not the first time in American history that this has happened. Less than a century after the establishment of the American republic, the election of the first president from the new Republican Party led to all of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line seceding from the American union and forming their own federation, which the United States then invaded and razed to the ground in the bloodiest war in all of American history. Generally, when a country replaces its hereditary monarchy it initially gets something monstrously tyrannical which may eventually evolve into something more stable and tolerable. When the British monarchy was temporarily abolished after the English Civil War and the murder of Charles I, the tyranny of Cromwell was the result, which was fortunately followed by the Restoration of the monarchy. In France, forcing the Bourbons off the throne resulted in the Jacobin Reign of Terror. The forced abdication of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties after World War I led directly to the rise of Adolf Hitler, whereas the fall of the Romanovs in Russia brought about the enslavement of that country to Bolshevism. To wish to get rid of the hereditary monarchy in Canada is to fail to learn anything at all from history.
I won’t elaborate too much on the third point. Either you see an advantage in the Commonwealth arrangement in which the Realms share a non-political, hereditary monarchy, but each Realm’s Parliament has complete control of its own affairs, or you do not. Jagmeet Singh does not appear to care much for Canada’s relationship with other Commonwealth countries. Take India for example. The relationship is a bit different because India is a republic within the Commonwealth rather than a Commonwealth Realm, but it still illustrates the point. As embarrassing as the present Prime Minister’s behaviour on his trip to India a few years ago was, the relationship between the two countries would be much worse in the unlikely event Jagmeet Singh were to become Prime Minister. He would probably not even be allowed into India. Eight years ago he was denied an entry visa – the first elected member of a Western legislature to be so denied – because of his connection with the movement that wishes to separate the Punjab from India and turn it into a Sikh state called Khalistan, a movement that is naturally frowned upon in India where it has been responsible for countless acts of terrorism (it has committed such acts in Canada too). Asked about it at the time, Singh placed all the blame for any harm done to the two countries relationship on India.
Which leads me back to where this essay started. Just as Singh could not see that his support for the movement that produced the bombing of Air India Flight 182 in 1985 may possibly be a legitimate reason for India to ban him from their country and blamed any deterioration in the relationship between the two countries on India, so he cannot see that anything he has said or done could possibly be a reason why his party did so poorly in the last Dominion election and places the blame on the prejudices of Canadians.
If by some miracle he were to come a self-awaking and realize that instead of demanding that Canadians change in order to accommodate him that there might be something objectionable about him that he ought to be trying to fix, a logical step for him to take would be to try and emulate the last leader in his own party who truly had popular appeal. If he were to do so, he would learn that that leader had a radically different attitude toward our country’s founding principles and fundamental institutions than his own.
The Honourable Jack Layton, the son of former Progressive Conservative MP Robert Layton, had this to say:
Some people think the NDP may want to get rid of the monarchy but I assure you that’s absolutely not the case. My dad was a big time monarchist and so am I.
Jagmeet should try to be more like Jack. He would be less of an ass if he did.