Justin Trudeau’s Cuckoldry
Finally the Mystery is solved.
Having watched PM Boy Wonder in office for almost two years now, many of us wonder why, oh why….
He swallows the entire LGBTQwerty agenda, without drawing the line at Ontario bill 89? A bill which, should it become law, could allow social workers to remove children from parents who reject transgender ideology.
Why he doesn’t criticize the University of Toronto for harassing Professor Jordan Peterson for standing up for Standard English and male/female pronouns?
Why he doesn’t threaten to cut funding to universities which will not guarantee free speech on campus or ensure that professors are not shouted down in the classroom?
Why he didn’t stand up for free speech and withdraw Motion 103 which if translated into law, will make criticism of an ideology — Islam — illegal?
Why, while attending a Mosque, didn’t he tell the imam that sharia law in regards to the rights of women, apostates and gays was antithetical to Canadian values?
Why didn’t he deploy officers, and if need be, soldiers, to border crossings where illegal migrants were pouring in?
Why didn’t he make a clear statement that he will protect and assert Canada’s sovereignty and secure the borders?
Why didn’t he say that covering one’s face at a citizenship ceremony or in any official, public event was unacceptable and counter to Canadian values? Why doesn’t draw the line at wearing niqabs?
Well, finally we have our answer. The mystery is solved:
Alfred Schaefer is a Canadian videographer living in Germany. On July 6, 2017 at 6:00 am his door bell rang ferociously, as if some berserk madman was about to kick in the door. Seven armed thugs appeared with guns, bullet-proof vests and handcuffs and one “witness” from the town administration. Please support Alfred Schaefer as he tells the truth and exposes the lies about the Holocaust.
Please email Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to act to protect this Canadian citizen who has had his property stolen, at: firstname.lastname@example.org .
Alfred Schaefer’s website is: https://www.youtube.com/user/Allwesable`
If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please donate with Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/posts/welcome… . You can also donate with PayPal at https://www.paypal.com with my email address email@example.com .
My websites is: http://www.brianruhe.ca . Join me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BrianRuhe . In April 2017 YouTube stopped the monitization of almost all of my videos meaning they stopped paying on the old ones.
If you enjoyed this video please click “Like”, Subscribe and Share! Please promote my channel and copy my videos onto your own YouTube channel or link them to your social media connections and email lists to spread the message!
All donations are greatfully appreciated! Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank you!!
My 2010 book is “A SHORT WALK ON AN ANCIENT PATH – A Buddhist Exploration of Meditation, Karma and Rebirth”, available in book or ebook form at Amazon.com at:
My first book from 1999, is “Freeing the Buddha,” with chapter 13, Adolf Hitler and Tibetan Buddhism, also at Amazon at:
The Disgraceful Payoff to Killer Khadr & Trudeau Invokes the Phoney CharterOh please Mr Trudeau, just do it, don’t insult us with your rationalizations about how the Charter protects us all “EVEN WHEN IT’S UNCOMFORTABLE”. That wonderful charter you speak about didn’t protect Ernst Zundel back in the days when a powerful lobby (more powerful than our charter) wanted his head or Brad Love jailed on many occasions for writing letters to our privileged politicians or James Sears who puts out a satirical newspaper, loved by many but hated by the powerful few who can lobby the Government to have his postal rights taken away. The charter didn’t work for them, nor has it helped the many many, many more Canadians who who have lost jobs and been pauperized for simply disagreeing with the party line. Your smiley face may impress many but hypocrisy is an ugly thing. — Lynda Mortl
On Khadr, Trudeau says Charter protects all Canadians ‘even when it is uncomfortable’
Former Guantanamo Bay detainee received $10.5M this week, sources tell CBC News
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians “even when it is uncomfortable,” responding to a question about his government’s apology and controversial payout to former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr.
“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable. This is not about the details or merits of the Khadr case. When the government violates any Canadian’s Charter rights we all end up paying for it,” he told reporters in Hamburg, where he’s wrapping up the G20 summit.
Khadr — who has been branded a terrorist by some and a child soldier subjected to torture by others — received a $10.5-million cheque Wednesday, sources told CBC News
- Government formally apologizes to Omar Khadr, as Andrew Scheer condemns ‘disgusting’ payout
- Omar Khadr says government apology ‘restores a little bit my reputation’
- ANALYSIS | Liberals defend and Tories attack Omar Khadr payout, both citing principles
Trudeau has been travelling all week with stops in Ireland and Scotland, before flying to Germany for the global leaders’ summit. Meanwhile, the Khadr payout has dominated headlines back home.Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr, 30, is seen in Mississauga, Ont., on Thursday, July 6, 2017. The federal government has paid Khadr $10.5 million and apologized to him for violating his rights during his long ordeal after capture by American forces in Afghanistan in July 2002. (Colin Perkel/Canadian Press)
News of the settlement first leaked late Monday night, but it took until Friday for the government to officially confirm that a settlement had been reached — and Ottawa refused to disclose the amount.
“It is not about previous behaviour on the battlefield in Afghanistan; it is about the acts and other decisions the Canadian government took against Mr. Khadr after he was captured and detained,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Friday. “Those facts are not in dispute and there is no doubt about how the Supreme Court views them. The government of Canada offended the most basic standards.”
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said it was “disgusting” for the government to concoct a “secret deal” and hand over millions to a convicted terrorist.
“This payout is a slap in the face to men and women in uniform who face incredible danger every day to keep us safe,” he said Friday.
Scheer said he believes the Harper government’s decision to repatriate Khadr in 2012 was a sufficient response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Khadr’s rights were violated.
‘Restores a little bit my reputation’
In an interview with CBC News’ Rosemary Barton, the Canadian-born Khadr, 30, said he hopes the settlement will help restore his reputation.
“I think it restores a little bit my reputation here in Canada, and I think that’s the biggest thing for me,” he said.
Khadr was 15 when he was captured by U.S. troops following the confrontation at a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.
Suspected of throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer, he was taken to Guantanamo and ultimately charged with war crimes by a military commission.
In 2010, he pleaded guilty to charges that included murder and was sentenced to eight years plus the time he had already spent in custody. He returned to Canada two years later to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released in May 2015 pending an appeal of his guilty plea, which he said was made under duress.
Yesterday morning, 6th of July, a 6:00 AM our door bell rang ferociously, as if some berserk madman was about to kick in the door. My wife and I jumped out of bed, I told her do not open just yet, hold them off for just a few seconds. OK, then in they came, 7 armed thugs with guns, bullet-proof vests and handcuffs and one “witness” from the town administration. They were not about to make the same mistake as the last summer when they raided and robbed me, obediantly following their orders from the Jewish Criminal B’nai Brith Canada. That time I was able to provide my own “witness”, who happened to be a Graf, which is a Count, or an Earl who lived across the street. Not only is he a Count, but he is well aware of the Jewish lies of the “Holohoax” and so much more, so obviously and visibly on my side. That time they only stole all of my computers, this time they were after my studio. I think it ticked them off that I made a video about that entire episode afterwords, which is:
My video’s are blocked in most European countries.
These thugs working at the behest of the Jewish B’nai Brith, wanted my ability to make video’s destroyed. They know that nobody believes their lies anymore and are desperate now to prevent anyone from spreading truth about the things they have done, lest it may upset anyone.
On the “state prosecutors” paper to justify this theft of my equipment we find: “Why do YOU support open debate on the Holocaust?” They claim that this is absolutely illegal. You may NOT question the six million gassed Jews that were turned into soap and lampshades and shrunken heads. After all, the German people paid a lot of money to all the millions of Jews who somehow did not end up as soap or a lampshade. And if you understand that it is all a big Jewish scam, the German people may ask for their shekels back. Or the goods. (Sort of like 9-11, which is why that is now also illegal to question). The “State Prosecutor” claims that any questions regarding 911 or the “Holy Cause” is incitement to racial hatred.
I wonder why they never bothered Steven Spielberg an outspoken Jewis propagandist for his evil fiction “Schindler’s List” which incited several generations of young children in schools to HATE the German people. Or what about all those “Holy Cause” memorials that our little children are obliged to visit at such a tender young age? What about the fraud Anne Frank?
The irony is, it was Jews who wanted to exterminate the German people the after the Germans wanted to free themselves from the Jewish immorality and usury. They came very close to succeeding by murdering many millions of Germans AFTER the end of the fighting. A million or more died in the Rhine Meadow Death Camps and the deliberate poisoning of the meager bread being fed to the German prisoners as well as their the Jewish poisoning of the German water supplies with the intention of mass murdering millions more of innocent Germans. One of many documented examples of these intentions is the book written by Theodore Kaufman, “Germany must Perish“. The Jewish lobby is busily trying to whitewash this information and make it disappear.
The fact that the “German authorities” raided me to shut me down and intimidate me, does provide us with great opportunity at this time. The double standards on display now, can not escape even the mentally challenged or zombies. (Zombies are those who, now in 2017, still believe the “Holocaust – TM” because, “if the Jews say it happened, then it must be true”.)
What is particularly interesting about this raid is that they not only stole all of my studio equipment worth thousands of Euros, but they also stole all of my stockpile of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth DVD’s and other information. They now consider this description of the forensic evidence as illegal as “denying the holocaust”. All of this information is now classified as “incitement to racial hatred”. So, if you are an engineer, and you are caught with evidence of the controlled demolition of the three towers on 9-11, you are now deemed “guilty of racial incitement to hatred”. If you tell your children that the German people turned Jews into soap and lampshades, then you are a hero.
The timing of this raid and the consequences are amazing. I just returned from a Canadian speaking tour that consisted of 14 presentations in 11 cities, from Toronto to Victoria. After arriving in Toronto I learned that Global News wanted to interview me in Calgary when I was due to arrive there about a week later. Upon arrival, they backed down with a pathetic excuse after our team insisted on recording the entire interview as well. It may also have something to do with the fact that B’nai Brith were the ones who provided me with priceless material for my most recent video’s, in particular this one: 1984 + 33 = 2017
The speaking tour in Canada, sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression, gave me great optimism, learning that many people are coming to the same conclusions, independently, and finding their new direction and purpose, by working to resolve this. In fact, most young people no longer need explaining when the meme “JQ” is used. They know it is the “Jewish Question”.
Every move that the Jews now make seems to accelerate the inevitable total implosion of their unsustainable construct of lies and deceptions. They will have a lot of explaining to do.
Some people may be depressed by what is happening, but I am so happy to be living now, with the ability to do constructive work to remedy an otherwise seemingly hopeless situation. With your help, we can do so much more.
Please contact me if you want to help.
Reply by email or you can phone me on +49-8158-9508
THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN
SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2017
One example of this is Bill C-16, which passed its third-reading in the Senate on Thursday, June 15th and which was signed into law by the Governor-General on Monday, June 19th. Bill C-16 is a bill which amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. To the former it adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Act. To the latter it adds the same to Section 318, the “hate propaganda” clause of the Code. The Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code were both inflicted upon us by the present premier’s father in his long reign of terror and it would have been better had the present Parliament passed legislation striking both out of existence rather than amending them to increase the number of ways in which they can be used to persecute Canadians. When, a century and a half ago, the Fathers of Confederation put together the British North America Act which, coming into effect on July 1, 1867, established the Dominion of Canada as a new nation within what would soon develop into the British Commonwealth of Nations, their intention was to create a free country, whose citizens, English and French, as subjects of the Crown, would possess all the freedoms and the protection of all the rights that had accumulated to such in over a thousand years of legal evolution. The CHRA and Section 318 do not belong in such a country – they are more appropriate to totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Third Reich.
The CHRA, which Parliament passed in 1977 during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds including race, religion, sex, and country of origin. It applies in a number of different areas with the provision of goods and services, facilities and accommodations, and employment being chief among them. Those charged with enforcing this legislation have generally operated according to an unwritten rule that it is only discrimination when whites, Christians, and males are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even if that were not the case, the very idea of a law of this sort runs contrary to the basic principles of our traditional freedoms and system of justice. It dictates to employers, landlords, and several other people, what they can and cannot be thinking when conducting the everyday affairs of their business. It establishes a special police force and court – the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal respectively – to investigate and sit in judgement upon those private thoughts and prejudices. Those charged do not have the protection of the presumption of innocence because the CHRA is classified as civil rather than criminal law.
There are more protections for defendants under Section 318 because it is part of the Criminal Code but it is still a bad law. Incitement of criminal violence was already against the law long before Section 318 was added. It is not, therefore, the incitement of criminal violence per se that Section 318 was introduced to combat, for the existing laws were sufficient, but the thinking and verbal expression of thoughts that the Liberal Party has decided Canadians ought not to think and speak.
Bill C-16 takes these bad laws and makes them even worse. By adding “gender identity and expression” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination the Liberals are adding people who think and say that they belong to a gender that does not match up with their biological birth sex to the groups protected from discrimination. Now, ordinarily when people think they are something they are not, like, for example, the man who thinks he is Julius Caesar, we, if we are decent people, would say that this is grounds for pity and compassion, but we would not think of compelling others to go along with the delusion. Imagine a law that says that we have to regard a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar as actually being the Roman general! Such a law would be crazier than the man himself!
Bill C-16 is exactly that kind of law. Don’t be fooled by those who claim otherwise. The discrimination that trans activists, the Trudeau Liberals and their noise machine, i.e., the Canadian media, and everyone else who supports this bill, all want to see banned, is not just the refusing of jobs or apartments to transgender people but the refusal to accept as real a “gender identity” that does not match up with biological sex. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto who has been fighting this sort of nonsense at the provincial level for years, and who testified against the Bill before the Senate committee that reviewed it, has warned that it could lead to someone being charged with a “hate crime” for using the pronoun – “he” or “she” – that lines up with a person’s birth sex, rather than some alternative pronoun made-up to designate that person’s “gender identity.” Supporters of the bill have mocked this assertion but we have seen this sort of thing before – progressives propose some sort of measure, someone points out that the measure will have this or that negative consequence, the progressives ridicule that person, and then, when the measure is passed and has precisely the negative consequences predicted, say that those negatively affected deserved it in the first place.
Indeed, progressive assurances that Peterson’s fears are unwarranted ring incredibly hollow when we consider that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would be considered discrimination under a similar clause in Ontario’s provincial Human Rights Code, if it were to take place in a context where discrimination in general is prohibited, such as the workplace. Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, writing in the National Post, explains that this new expansion of human rights legislation goes way beyond previous “hate speech” laws in its infringement upon freedom of speech. “When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself,” Pardy writes, but “Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”
It is too much, perhaps, to expect Captain Airhead to understand or care about this. Like his father before him – and indeed, every Liberal Prime Minister going back to and including Mackenzie King – he has little to no appreciation of either the traditional freedoms that are part of Canada’s British heritage or the safeguards of those freedoms bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation in our parliamentary government under the Crown. For a century, Liberal governments have whittled away at every parliamentary obstacle to the absolute power of a Prime Minister backed by a House majority. The powers of the Crown, Senate, and the Opposition in the House to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accountable have all been dangerously eroded in this manner. Last year the present government attempted to strip Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition of what few means it has left of delaying government legislation. The motion in question was withdrawn after the Prime Minister came under strong criticism for behaving like a spoiled, bullying, petty thug in the House but it revealed his character. These Opposition powers are a necessary safeguard against Prime Ministerial dictatorship but Captain Airhead, the son of an admirer of Stalin and Mao, regards them, like the freedoms they protect, as an unacceptable hindrance to his getting his way as fast as he possibly can. Years ago, George Grant wrote that the justices of the American Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had “used the language of North American liberalism to say yes to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.” This is also the modus operandi of Captain Airhead and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Free Speech Takes A Big Hit: Bill C 16 Passes Senate & Enforces Special Privileges for the Sexually Confused
Thursday, June 15 was a grim day for freedom of speech. After months of debate and some spirited opposition, the Senate passed.67-11, one of the pet projects of self-described feminist, best
buddy of the transgendered and enthusiastic participant in gay pride parades from Montreal to Vancouver, Justin Trudeau. This bill will make criticism of yet another privileged minority — now gender identity and gender expression — difficult. If your criticism is deemed “hate” under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law”, you could go to prison for two years. Under Canada’s welter of pernicious federal and provincial human rights (minority special privileges) laws, you might be compelled to call a sexually weird individual by whatever pronoun he/she/it/zee/zuu/zur insists on. As the next story makes clear, this is already happening. CTV News (June 15, 2107) reported: ” Nicole Nussbaum, a lawyer with expertise in gender identity and gender expression issues, says she’s relieved the bill has finally passed. Parliament has seen earlier versions of the bill for more than a decade, but never approved one. Including gender expression and gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act will ‘address the really desperate situation that many trans and gender non-confirming, non-binary people experience as a result of discrimination, harassment and violence,’ she said in an interview with CTVNews.ca.” Hang on a minute: Violence against anyone, sexually weird, confused or otherwise is already illegal. And, “non-binary” — meaning not one of two (that is, male or female) — would seem to suggest people who are seriously confused and perhaps mentally ill. Now, they must be treated with care and their delusions adopted. The CTV report continued: “The Senate took seven months to study and debate the bill, a process that included discussions about whether it would force people to use unusual pronouns.
The Canadian Bar Association, which spoke in favour of the bill, called those fears a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation. ‘Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most ‘extreme manifestations’ with the intention of promoting the ‘level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection’ that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups,’ Rene Basque, president of the CBA, wrote to the Senate legal affairs committee last month.” For one thing, Basque is speaking only of the “hate law” here, not the much more loosey goosey human rights laws. Supposing an employer refers to a person who looks male as “he”, but is told the person feels like a woman today and wants to be called she or zee or they. If the employer is a traditional Christian or just a common sensical sort and does not want to join this person in their fantasies and insists on referring to the individual as “he”, might this not suggest “abhorrence, delegitimization or rejection”? And, if so, the poor employer has big legal problems. Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto was warned last Autumn that, if he did not address the transgendered or sexually mixed-up by the made-up pronoun of their choice, he could face discrimination problems with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Daily Caller News Foundation (June 16, 2107) explained the new law is “making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training. Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code. … ‘Great news,’ announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. ‘Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.’ [Uh, what does sexual confusion have to do with love, Trust Fund Kid?]
Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law. ‘Compelled speech has come to Canada,’ stated Peterson. ‘We will seriously regret this.’‘[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,’ said the professor to the Senate in May. ‘The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.’ Peterson has previously pledged not to use irregular gender pronouns and students have protested him for his opposition to political correctness. ‘This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,’ Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of Campaign Life Toronto, a pro-life political group in Canada, told LifeSiteNews.”
THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2017
Yes Antonia, There is a Threat to Canadian Freedom of Speech
Antonia Blumberg, the Associate Religion Editor for the progressive liberal disinformation site that some consider to be the online equivalent of a newspaper, the Huffington Post, has come to the defence of the anti-Islamophobia motion that Iqra Khalid, the Liberal MP representing Mississauga-Erin Mills has introduced into the Canadian Parliament. In doing so she has lived down to the stereotype, popular here in the Dominion of Canada, of the Yankee who spouts off about things of which she knows nothing.
Regardless of whether it is a non-binding motion or a bill, there is a very real threat to freedom of speech here, of which anyone familiar with the Liberal Party’s long war on the traditional rights and freedoms of Canadians would be well aware. There are many parallels between what the Liberal Party is doing now and what it did in the 1970s under the leadership of the father of the present federal premier. Then, as now, it decided that it was the government’s place to combat ideas and attitudes that the Liberals considered to be unacceptable. At the time it was racial and religious prejudice in general, and anti-Semitism in particular that the Liberals were going after. Warning Canadians that the threat of a potential Canadian Fourth Reich existed if these attitudes were not drummed out, stomped down, and extirpated with extreme prejudice, the Liberals, bereft of any sense of irony, established a Canadian equivalent of the Gestapo and the NKVD/NKGB/MGB/KGB in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Although progressives will undoubtedly sputter with offence and rage at the comparison in the last sentence it is entirely apt and valid. The difference between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the secret police of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes is one of degree not of kind. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought you before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal you would not end up facing a firing squad or being shipped away to a forced labour camp. At most you would be fined an exorbitant and crippling amount of money, slapped with a lifetime gag order, and have your career and reputation completely and utterly destroyed. Nevertheless, the Canadian Human Rights Commission exists for the same reason its Nazi and Soviet equivalents existed – to track down and punish those considered guilty of what, in Orwellian Newspeak would be called crimethink. It was negative thoughts about those designated as “vulnerable minorities” that the Trudeau Liberals considered to be crimethink, rather than negative thoughts about the regime itself, as was the case in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, and Orwell’s 1984, but it was crimethink all the same, and those charged with crimethink found that there was very little in the way of defence available to them. More perhaps, than was available to the unfortunate victims of the totalitarian regimes, but much less than has been traditionally available to the free subject-citizens of one of Her Majesty’s realms. The Liberals were able to get away with this by classifying the legislation – the Canadian Human Rights Act – which the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal enforced as civil rather than criminal law. Civil law does not come with the same legal protections of the rights of the defendant that exist under criminal law. The progressive supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its enforcing bodies deceive themselves, however, if they think this legislation exists to help people settle disputes among themselves, and not to punish people whose thoughts are considered criminal by the “Natural Ruling Party of Canada” as the Grits so arrogantly designate themselves.
Blumberg, citing the CBC, quotes Justin Trudeau as saying, in defence of Khalid’s motion “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater and call that free speech.” This is not a valid comparison however, no matter how many times freedom-hating, totalitarian dolts make it. When you yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, you can create a panic in which people hurt or even kill people in their rush to get out. It is the act of mischief that is proscribed by law, not the idea expressed (“there is a fire in this theatre”). Indeed, if that idea were true, if there actually was a fire in the theatre, we would want that information to be conveyed, albeit in a more orderly fashion.
A law prohibiting so-called “hate speech” is not like this. If the Liberal Party passes a motion condemning Islamophobia and saying that the government must do everything in its power to combat Islamophobia, a hate speech law will be the next step they take. There is abundant evidence in their past track record to show this to be the case. It is the way they think. Such laws exist for one purpose, and one purpose only, to say “you are not allowed to think this or that.” The argument that says that “hate speech” also hurts people like yelling “fire” in a theatre because it can inspire someone to commit acts of violence is spurious, specious and downright mendacious. If one person expresses a negative view of a race, religion, sex or whatever, and another person who has heard this commits a violent act against a member of the group in question, it will not be an immediate, automatic, response like the panic in the theatre. It will involve someone thinking about the negative view expressed, deliberating on it, and concluding that violence is the right way to act on this information. Such a conclusion suggests that there was something wrong in this person’s head already, long before he heard the “hate speech”. Which is why “hate speech” is much less likely to produce a violent crime than calling “fire” in a theatre is likely to produce a panic. It would be more defensible, perhaps, to argue that speech that explicitly calls for a violent response, of the general “kill the ——-s” type, ought to be proscribed, but the “hate speech” that is prohibited by such laws is never limited to just this, and at any rate, this sort of thing was already covered by the laws against incitement that have been around since long before someone dreamed up the idea of laws against hate and which are far better laws being designed to protect everyone and not some designated group.
What the Liberal Party has done in the past in the name of combatting racism and protecting “vulnerable minorities”, however worthy we may or may not consider these goals to be in themselves, is completely unacceptable in a country like Canada. It is now 150 years since men like Sir John A. MacDonald established Canada as a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, with legislative and judicial institutions grounded in the tradition attached to the Crown, including all the rights and freedoms of the Common Law. The right way to protect “vulnerable minorities” in our country, would have been to do a better job of making sure that the full protection of these rights and freedoms was enjoyed by all of Her Majesty’s citizen-subjects in our free Dominion, whatever their race, ethnic origin, etc. might happen to be. Instead, the Liberal Party opted to give special protection to “vulnerable minorities” and to abridge the traditional rights and freedoms of all Canadians to do so, while doing everything in their power to undermine our British heritage and the tradition from which those rights and freedoms sprang.
It is evident to every patriotic Canadian who loves his country, its true heritage, and its traditional freedoms, and is aware of what is going on that the Liberal Party is preparing to do more of the same, even if an ignorant Yank writing for a silly left-wing trash site is completely clueless as to what is going on.