Ursula Haverbeck – the 94-year old German scholar and publisher who was facing 12 months in prison for the ‘crime’ of raising questions about the ‘Holocaust’ – will not now be jailed, following a decision just announced in Berlin.
Even after the rejection of a final legal appeal last October, Ursula’s tireless lawyer Wolfram Nahrath had persisted with arguments that it was unacceptable for a 94-year-old lady to be incarcerated – and the authorities seem finally to have accepted this.
Ursula Haverbeck with her Berlin lawyer Wolfram Nahrath
We shall have fuller details of the Berlin decision soon.
What is already clear is that international protests played a part in convincing the German authorities that jailing Ursula Haverbeck was a propaganda disaster for them, and that their reputation would suffer even further if the sentence were enforced.
Thanks are therefore due to her lawyer Herr Nahrath, but also to the international campaign that drew attention to the original sentence and to the tyranny of Germany’s jailing of dissident historians.
The next step should be the repeal of the volksverhetzung law itself, which is an outrage against traditional European standards of free historical debate and rational argument.
Lady Michele Renouf Presents Former German Political Prisoner & Historical Truther Alfred Schaefer With 2022 George Orwell Free Speech Award
At last we have been able to present the GEORGE ORWELL AWARD 2022 to its honoured co-recipient ALFRED SCHAEFER! The Award was presented in Vancouver, July 29, 2022 to Monika Schaefer and Alfred but Alfred’s certificate was presented this fall by British Free Speech Warrior Lady Michele Renouf
He that Hath No Sword, Let Him Sell His Garment and Buy One
Here in the Dominion of Canada, we are now in the eighth year of the federal premiership of Captain Airhead, or Justin Trudeau to use the unkind slur by which he is often called. He came to power in the Dominion election of 2015 with a majority win for the Liberals and has managed to cling to power ever since with slim pluralities. Despite, however, the fact that he has been in a position of minority government since 2019, he continues to govern like he has a clear, blank-cheque of a mandate, to do whatever he wants, no matter how unjust and divisive his various agendas turn out to be.
Take Bill C-21. Please, take it. This bill was tabled (1) early last year and had finished going through its first two readings around the beginning of summer in June. The bill is the product of all the hot air that has been coming from the Liberal government since the multiple shooting incident in Nova Scotia in April of 2020. Shortly after the attacks, Captain Airhead announced on the Communist holiday that a ban by Order-in-Counsel would take effect immediately on what he called “assault-style” weapons. This was all a lot of smoke and mirrors. Actual assault weapons of the kind that match the way the Prime Minister keeps describing them, i.e., weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time, were already illegal in Canada and had been long before the Nova Scotia shootings. The “assault-style weapons” that he was going after were merely non-military grade rifles that had been made to look like military rifles for those to whom such an appearance had an aesthetic appeal. Captain Airhead then began shooting his mouth off for the last three years about the need to make our streets safe from gun crime, even as he introduced or stuck to policies on everything from border control to mind-altering drugs to bail reform that had the opposite effect. Bill C-21 if passed would amend various Acts of Parliament to enshrine a much broader gun ban than the one of 2020 into statutory law. It would do absolutely nothing about making our streets safe from gun crime because these crimes are overwhelmingly committed with guns that are illegally obtained – as were the guns in the Nova Scotia shootings, incidentally – because they are already illegal. None of these acts of the Trudeau Liberals, from the Order-in-Council of 1 May, 2020 to Bill C-21, have had or will have much of an effect on making Canadians safer from crimes either of the Nova Scotia variety or of the kind that afflicts our inner cities. Those who are most affected by such empty, self-righteous, gestures are law-abiding Canadians who own guns that they acquired legally and have only used legally. Liberals like the Prime Minister, Bill Blair and Marco “the Mendacious” Mendicino think nothing about unjustly and unfairly punishing such people for the crimes of actual gun criminals against whom they are either unable or unwilling to act.
All the criticism of Bill C-21 and its drafters in the preceding paragraph applied to the bill even before it went into Committee consideration after the second reading in the House which is where it presently stands. During the Committee stage, however, the Liberals amended it in a way that made it much worse. The amendment, which was introduced very late in the year, the Liberals apparently hoping to squeak the amended bill through Committee and its third reading before the House adjourned for Christmas and relying upon the amendment having been introduced just prior to the anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre to shield the move from criticism, greatly expanded the list of guns to be banned. While the Liberals continue to shout “misinformation” and “disinformation” at anyone, especially His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservatives, when they point this out, it is quite reasonable to conclude from the amended list of guns to be banned that rural Canadians, especially farmers and hunters, are being targeted here. There are guns on the list that are clearly hunting guns and which are in no way connected to gun crime in Canada. A traditional shotgun made by English manufacturer Webley and Scott for hunting birds is one such example. There are many others. (2) Indeed, if you were to draw up a list of the most common guns used by farmers and hunters, you would find that many of the most prominent guns on the list are included in the amended version of Bill C-21. The Liberal Party under its current management loves to turn Canadians against each other, to reward those who vote Liberal, and rub the noses of those who do not vote Liberal in Liberal laws, but here this backfired against them. At present, as a minority government, they are propped up by the socialist party, the New Democrats, who agreed to support them in Parliament until the next Dominion election. It is not just the Conservatives, however, who have a large rural base but the NDP as well. While the NDP is led by urban socialists, much of their caucus represent northern ridings where reservations in which hunting remains a huge part of the way of life are to be found. When the Assembly held an emergency session in early December and condemned the Liberal bill as an assault on their way of life the NDP had no choice but to join the Conservatives in opposing the Bill in its currently amended form. When this happened, even the few Liberals who represent rural ridings felt free to break ranks with the leadership of their own party over the issue. Call it a Christmas miracle.
While initially when faced with such opposition the government gave signs of being willing to make concessions, when asked a few weeks later about this the Prime Minister indicated that they intended to pass Bill C-21 and doubled down on accusing the Conservatives of “misinformation” and “disinformation” for telling the truth about how the bill would adversely affect law-abiding rural Canadians without doing anything about actual gun crime. How this shall unfold in this New Year remains to be seen.
Earlier last year Captain Airhead made a remark in an interview that is quite revealing about the attitude he brings to this issue. Appearing on an American podcast (Pod Save the World) he defended his government’s gun control policies and contrasted American and Canadian culture saying:
and we have a culture where the difference is, guns can be used for hunting or for sport-shooting in Canada, and there are lots of gun owners, and they’re mostly law-respecting and law abiding, but you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada. That’s not a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else.
It would be interesting to know if he really believes this or if he was just shooting his mouth off without thinking. It is, of course, nonsense. Canadians do indeed have a constitutional and legal right of self-protection and when a right is explicitly spelled out as such in constitution and law the implicit corollary is the right to employ such means as the explicit right may require. Trudeau may be under the mistaken impression that his father’s Charter is the Canadian constitution, a mistake about which I shall have more to say shortly, but even if we limit our discussion of the constitution to the Charter his statement would be wrong. Section 7 of the Charter by spelling out Canadians right to security of the person, recognizes their right of self-protection. Furthermore, the Firearms Act recognizes self-protection as a legitimate grounds for a firearms permit (Section 20) and the Criminal Code (Sections 34, 35) acknowledges the right to use force to protect one’s person and property.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, properly understood, of course, is not Canada’s constitution, but a part of Canada’s constitution that was added in 1982. Even the British North America Act, which, contrary to what many mistakenly think was not repealed in 1982 but renamed (the Constitution Act, 1867), taken together with the Charter, is only part of our constitution. In Canada, we have a constitution that is both written and unwritten, and the unwritten parts are the largest. The Charter itself acknowledges that its enactment does not annul other rights and freedoms than those spelled out it in it, that Canadians had previously enjoyed as part of our constitutional heritage of Common Law and parliamentary monarchy. The right to use firearms in self-protection was already part of that heritage before the American Revolution and was not invented by the United States. The only thing distinctively American about the United States’ version of the idea of the right to use firearms in self-protection is the notion that the right is absolute. That people have the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and the necessary corollary right to protect the same, and consequently the right to the means to such protection was recognized by both the Tory (Sir William Blackstone) and Whig (John Locke) traditions before the latter gave birth to both the American Revolution and the Liberal Party, which, for all of Trudeau’s yap about American influence on Canada, has always been the party of Americanization.
There is a tendency in some Christian circles to misinterpret the teachings of Christ in way that is parallel to how Trudeau misinterprets the Canadian constitution and law. These misguided brethren have the idea that not merely the use of guns but self-protection in general is forbidden believers by Jesus’ teachings (the Sermon on the Mount specifically), and example (He allowed Himself to be arrested, falsely accused, tortured, and crucified without resisting). In an extreme form that is associated with the tradition of the far left radical wing of the continental Protestant Reformation this interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and example is taken to mean that Christians cannot serve as policemen, soldiers, or in any other office of the state that requires the use of force.
With regards to the Sermon on the Mount this misinterpretation arises from the basic error of failing to give due weight to Matthew 5:17-19 or to note how these verses apply to what immediately follows in the remainder of the chapter. These verses are the warning not to think that Jesus had come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them. They come before Jesus’ saying that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and His expansion upon what that entails with a series of six contrasts in which one variation or another of the words “ye have heard that it was said to them of old time” introduces a quotation from the Old Testament, and then Jesus introduces the other side of the contrast with “but I say to you”. These latter words are ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν in the Greek. δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν means “but I say to you” without the ἐγὼ and ἐγὼ like all other nominative case personal pronouns in Greek is only used for emphasis. By emphasizing the first person pronoun in this way, in this sort of contrast, Jesus declares His Own authority in speaking to be on par with that of the Old Testament Scriptures. This format could easily suggest to some minds that Jesus was telling His followers to disregard the Old Testament and listen to Him instead. Verses 17 to 19 warn His hearers against taking His words in that manner.
With regards to the first two contrasts, in which the Old Testament quotations are taken from the Decalogue, there is less need of such a warning since what follows the “but I say to you” intensifies the meaning of the quoted commandment. The third and fourth contrasts, however, could easily be taken as contradicting the Old Testament commandments. The quotations come from the civil portion of the Mosaic Law, the instructions with regards to divorce and swearing oaths. Jesus tells His followers that anyone who divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her and anyone who marries her to commit adultery, and tells them not to swear at all. Verses 17 to 19 tell us that this is not to be taken as annulling the civil provisions of the Mosaic Law. Therefore, when Jesus said “swear not at all” this had nothing to do with the courtroom, as those sects whose members won’t take the oath before testifying in court wrongly think, but with oaths in common conversation. Swearing on a Bible to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” does not violate Jesus’ instructions. Saying “by gum” in casual conversation does. (3)
The same principle applies to the last couplet of contrasts. In the first of these, the Old Testament quotation is the Lex Talionis “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. In the second the quotation is the Second Greatest Commandment, to love your neighbour. Note that in this final contrast, in addition to the Old Testament quotation there is added the words “and hate thine enemy”, a false extrapolation from the Old Testament commandment, and it is this false extrapolation to which Jesus speaks with His “but I say to you” which here directly contradicts the unscriptural add-on with the instruction to “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.”.
It is Jesus’ “but I say to you” remarks in this last couplet of contrasts that is taken by some to mean that Christians are not allowed to protect themselves against violence. What do verses 17 to 19 tell us about Jesus’ instructions to turn the other cheek?
The first thing to note, is that clearly verses 17 to 19 tell us that Jesus was not setting aside the Lex Talionis as the standard of criminal justice to be applied in a court of law. Since that is the case, the extreme interpretation that says that Jesus’ followers are not serve as officers of law enforcement or any other state office the duties of which require the use of force is a twisting of the meaning of this passage.
The second thing to note is that just as clearly “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” cannot be speaking about protecting oneself against the violent attacks of others. This is because the right of self-protection was established in the Mosaic Law. Exodus 22 is the operative passage. If somebody breaks into another person’s house in the middle of the night, that person – the homeowner not the burglar – is not guilty of a crime if he uses lethal force against the housebreaker. It was a limited right – it lasted only to daybreak after which the homeowner would be guilty, presumably because other options than lethal force would then be available – rather than an absolute right, but it is there and therefore, we can conclude from Matthew 5:17-19, that the instruction to turn the other cheek does not forbid such self-protection. Indeed, this should be apparent from Jesus’ very words. The verb translated “smite” is ῥαπίζω and while this word did originally mean “strike with a stick” – it is derived from a noun meaning “stick” or “rod” – or “cudgel” or “thrash”, it later came to be used as shorthand for the phrase ἐπὶ κόρρης πατάξαι which more or less means “knock upside the head” and in writings contemporaneous with the New Testament generally means a “slap in the face”. This is what it means here in the Gospel where the right cheek is specifically mentioned. This particular combination refers not to an attack on the security of one’s person, but to an insult, the kind of insult that affronts one’s honour and challenges one to a duel. To accept that challenge is to take a situation in which a confrontation has been building up in words and escalate it into violence, potentially lethal violence. The response prescribed by Jesus, however, is one that would defuse such a powder keg. It is quite perverse, therefore, to take Jesus’ words here as forbidding you from taking measures to protect yourself in situations that are already violent.
This brings us to Jesus’ Own example. There are a number of important observations to be made. The first of these is that Jesus clearly did not believe that the use of force is never called for in any situation. Had He thought that way He would not have overturned the tables of the money-changers and drove the merchants out of the Temple. The second, is that prior to His meekly submitting to arrest He commanded His disciples to procure for themselves the means of self-protection by selling their clothes if necessary (Luke 22:36, from which the title of this essay is taken). The third is that His submission to being arrested, falsely charged, falsely convicted, tortured, and crucified was necessary because it was through these events that He fulfilled the purpose for which He came into this world in the first place, to offer Himself up as the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Related to this last observation is one that can be made about Jesus’ early followers, both in the New Testament and in the early centuries of post-New Testament Christian history. While it is true that the early Christians submitted to being tortured, imprisoned, and killed for Jesus’ sake, the most important words here are “for Jesus’ sake”. Jesus had warned His followers at various times, such as in the Olivet Discourse and in the earlier original commissioning of the Twelve Apostles (and later the Seventy), that thy would be persecuted in this manner because of His name and told them that they would be blessed and rewarded for this. The early Christians rejoiced at the opportunity to suffer for Christ in this way. All of this, however, had to do with their being treated in this way because they were Christians, because they publicly confessed and proclaimed Christ. If a disciple were walking down a street in ancient Corinth and were pulled into an alley and beaten and robbed of everything he had on him and left to die, not because he was a Christian but because the robber who neither knew nor cared what his religious beliefs were wanted some quick cash, this did not make a martyr out of that disciple. When the early Christians qua Christians, were persecuted, tortured, and killed in the name of the Christ they confessed, by submitting to such treatment they bore witness to that Christ, and by doing so persuaded many others of the truth of their faith. Just as good came out of the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, in that His death paid for the sins of the world and made salvation available to all, so good came out of the martyrdom of His followers which contributed to the spread of the Gospel throughout the ancient world. The willingness of the early Christians to submit to martyrdom or rather to embrace it – St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, is said to have yearned for martyrdom his entire Christian life and mourned when he survived earlier persecutions than the one in which he finally attained it – should not therefore be taken as evidence that they thought they needed to submit without resisting to any and every act of violence. While the death of Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of the world and the martyrdom of the early Christians helped the Gospel to spread like wildfire, most types of violent deaths – robbing someone for his wallet, murdering someone in a fit of rage, the cold-blooded assassination of your business or political rivals, killing someone in a drunken or drug-induced brawl, etc. – accomplish no such good. To submit to such acts can indeed do evil to others. If you give in to the demands of a bully, for example, he will generally not be satisfied and leave you alone, but will continue to bully you more and demand more of you, and will be emboldened to bully others, until someone stands up to him. This applies to other forms of violent aggression as well. Those who erroneously think that the teachings and example of Jesus and His early followers tell us that we ought to submit in non-resistance to every sort of violent crime are telling us that we should be content to allow our neighbours to suffer from society being overrun by violent crime. That is an odd way of loving one’s neighbour. The Second Greatest Commandment, of course, is to “love thy neighbour as thyself”. If someone’s idea of loving himself is that he should allow everyone and everything to walk all over him, submit to every sort of affront to his human dignity, and let every imaginable sort of violent crime be perpetrated against himself, I would not place much stock in his love for his neighbour.
(1) This terminology might confuse readers from the United States if they are not aware of the difference between their usage and ours. In the Commonwealth to “table” a bill means to introduce it in parliament for consideration, i.e., to “put it on the table”. In American parlance it has the opposite meaning, to remove a bill from consideration, or to “take it off the table”.
(3) This is, of course, where the word “swearing” in the negative sense of the term comes from. Originally, “swearing” in the negative sense meant the use of oaths outside of a courtroom. Some older Canadians may still remember a time when they would be reprimanded for swearing for saying any of the various sorts of “by this or that” casual oaths. Ironically, as the word came to take on the generic meaning of “language you shouldn’t use” so as to include cursing, which Scripture is also against, and barnyard or gutter slang about which the Scripture is silent, the sorts of phrases it originally and literally described, dropped out of what most people think when they hear the word. — Gerry T. Neal
Psychological warfare! Hundreds of Dr. Jordan Peterson supporters protest outside the College of Psychologists of Ontario
Earlier this month, Dr. Peterson took to Twitter to call out the Orwellian witch-hunt against him for making statements that the college considers to be politically incorrect.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is one of the most brilliant minds on the planet today. He has authored bestselling books; he is a speaker in demand the world over; and he has helped thousands of individuals – mostly young males – turn their lives around.
So why is Dr. Peterson suddenly deemed to be persona non grata by the College of Psychologists of Ontario?
Well, incredibly, Dr. Peterson is essentially being persecuted for… wrong-thought.
Earlier this month, Dr. Peterson took to Twitter to call out the Orwellian witch-hunt against him for making statements that the college considers to be politically incorrect.
Wrote Peterson: “BREAKING: the Ontario College of Psychologists has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting Pierre Poilievre and criticizing Justin Trudeau and his political allies.
“I am to take a course of such training (with reports documenting my ‘progress’ or face an in-person tribunal and suspension of my right to operate as a licensed clinical psychologist.”
“About a dozen people from all over the world submitted complaints about my public statements on Twitter and Rogan over a four-year period (out of the 15 million who follow me on social media) claiming that I had ‘harmed’ people (not them) with my views.”
And so it is that Dr. Peterson’s colleagues think he must be… “reprogrammed”? What would George Orwell say if he were alive today? (Perhaps Orwell would lament that his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was meant to be a work of fiction, not an instruction manual.)
Indeed, the crux of the matter when it comes to this story is that Dr. Peterson is not being investigated by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for any alleged improper behaviour with regard to a current or former patient. Rather, the college deems his politics to be offside.
This is equal parts outrageous and egregious.
And on Wednesday, a few hundred Peterson supporters held a peaceful rally outside the Toronto headquarters of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
Some notable speakers included People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier and Church of God pastor Henry Hildebrandt, both of whom have had to deal with censorship issues during the past few years.
The statements by attendees were consistent: they support freedom of speech; they despise censorship and compelled speech; and they believe the tall forehead types who comprise the CPO are, well, out of their collective minds.
And if the brainiacs at the college think Dr. Peterson is going to bend the knee to the woke mob, they are sadly deluded.
Indeed, Dr. Peterson first came to prominence several years ago when he was teaching at the University of Toronto. That’s when he first took a stand against compelled speech – especially when it came to referring to the various spirit unicorns on campus with phony baloney pronouns such as “zee/zir”, “xe/xem”, etc., etc.
He wasn’t silenced then; he won’t be silenced now.
And by the way, who exactly looks upon Jordon Peterson as being “controversial” in the first place merely for espousing… common sense?
Is it the woke mob on campus? The thugs who comprise Antifa? Those who suffer from mental illness and/or the radical transgender community?
“I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination.”
Jimmy Dean
Hi everyone. As announced at our last rally, we are making a few changes. To begin, we are going to have rallies on the first Saturday of every month, as opposed to each Saturday. Time and location remain the same: Stuart Park at 12:00 p.m.
Our first rally was January 7, 2023, with special speakers Steve Merrill from Sun City Silver & Gold, and Lindsay Gabelhouse, Journalist and Consultant, both from Kelowna!
The next rally will be February 4, 2023.
We are also going to begin shortly with CLEAR meetings indoors to permit us to work more effectively on freedom related issues. More info to come in this regard.
We will continue to do special rallies and marches when necessary or beneficial to do so, as well as other public activities in support of freedom. This includes the huge Saturday, January 28, 2023 Truckers Tribute Convoy.
Our objective is simply to be more effective in opposing Gov’t tyranny. Our rallies have inspired so many people and have set fire under the gov’ts for almost three years. The ongoing attempts to shut us down, which continue to fail, demonstrate an ongoing fear by all Governments of the public attention we are raising on these issues. Remember too, they do not know the extent of our efforts and this frightens them even more. I cannot begin to tell you the number of people who have thanked us for our rallies and continued opposition to these corrupt gov’ts, and the inspiration we have provided to so many people, not only in Kelowna but throughout BC and Canada. Everyone coming to our rallies and participating in our activities, has contributed to this success.
Now we need to be more effective and begin more direct work against these tyrants in power.
Our objective remains freedom – we now will approach that objective from several directions. We are definitely going to require more volunteers and ideas. We hope you will continue to support us as we move forward this year.
We remain available at clear2012@pm.me for your questions and suggestions.
In freedom
David and the CLEAR Team
————————————–
Ramping up the Fight
In spite of the fact that we have made history in Kelowna with our weekly rallies up until this New Year, we need to ramp things up. In the November survey, people stated a whole variety of reasons as to why they were attending the rallies. To sum it up, it was a place for like-minded people to gather and bond with each other, share encouragement, get informed, take a stand, resist authority/tyranny/oppression and experience a spiritual fellowship. We were making a statement that we would not acquiesce to unlawful mandates.
For almost 3 years, we’ve been a real thorn in the side of our power-hungry governments and they did their darndest to break us; to no avail. We’re just getting started; they ain’t seen nothin’ yet! But although the mandates ended last March, the governments have been working fast and furious to pass one unlawful bill after another, with the help of media who’ve said NOTHING to the public about these treasonous activities. The rallies have been scaled back to once a month so we can focus on tackling the multitude of assaults on our health, rights and freedoms.
We want to create focus groups that will target specific topics to bring awareness to the community. These groups will be responsible for exposing information that is being suppressed by what has become the lowest form of life on earth: mainstream media. If you signed our Volunteer list, start thinking about which area might be of interest to you. Thanks to the U.N.’s Agenda 2030, the list is expansive:
Sustainability agenda
Climate change hoax
5G
Digital ID
Covid Fraud
The Sick Care system and death trap called KGH
Vaccine injuries/deaths
Exposing media lies and promoting independent media
The danger of the public education system and the SOGI scam
The Chamber of Commerce and small business
Common law education
Finding & promoting whistle-blowers
A fundraising committee
Exposing and eliminating usury
Promoting food security
Establishing David’s Canadian Assembly of Independents as a new political system
The corrupt judicial system
Targeting communist bills like Bill 11, 36 etc…
If you can think of anything else, let us know.
Soon, we will schedule a time and place for our first volunteer meeting. See you there
Freedom Convoy Tribute 2023 – Canada Unites the World!
In recognition of the incredible national & international effect Canadian truckers have had for freedom, supported all over the world, we are remembering their contributions and sacrifices on the 1st anniversary of their arrival in Ottawa earlier this year on January 28.
Join us on Saturday, January 28, 2023 at McCurdy Corner in Kelowna, B.C. for an all-day convoy in the B.C. Interior!!
Convoy Route:
NOTE:Approximate times only
ArriveLocationLeave
8:30 a.m. McCurdy Mall Kelowna
Hwy 97 & McCurdy 9:10 a.m.
Arrivals also from Salmon Arm, Vernon, Armstrong, and Kelowna
9:45 a.m. Superstore West Kelowna
3020 Louie Dr. Turn R on Butt Road 10:15 a.m.
Osoyoos/Penticton to meet us here
Arrivals from S. Okanagan
Take the Connector to Merritt
Vehicles will proceed slowly to permit catch-up, then Hwy speed
Loon Lake Road — Washroom Break L. side of Hwy
11:30 a.m. Arrive Gravel Pit Merritt 12:00 p.m.
At traffic light at bottom of hill coming off the connector, go straight and take second left into Godey Pitts
3:15 Salmon Arm Location Stop at the Mall 3:30 p.m.
Leave via Hwy 1 east to Hwy 97B, turn right
Junction Hwy 97B and 97A – turn right onto Hwy 97A
Continue through Enderby, Armstrong
4:30 Vernon – travel straight through
6:00 p.m. END – McCurdy Corner Kelowna
End and socialize
Lead car: Lou
Tail car: Sarah
Both lead cars to have two people so one person can communicate with others
Meeting Place For South Okanagan Convoy Participants
8:00 a.m. Convoy Participants from Osoyoos, Oliver and Penticton to meet at the corner of Warren Ave and Main Street in Penticton.
(Please arrive on time as we could be delayed by 20 minutes due to construction on Hwy 97just north of Summerland. It important for the convoy to leave at 8:15 am sharp)
8:15 a.m. sharp Leave Penticton heading to Westbank
We need a truly independent inquiry – not some committee where the arbitrator is appointed and the terms and conditions set out by the Prime Dictator of Canada.
We had a record 11 people deliver almost 700 papers in a matter of hours last Sunday!
Good job everybody, the word is getting out!
Next delivery day: Jan. 15/23
(Weather Permitting)
Add your name to the delivery list and make sure to check your email on Sunday mornings for confirmation that our paper delivery will take place that day
Pick the time that works for you:
Make sure you arrive before the designated time so we can all get going ASAP!
Every Sunday at
11:30 OR 1:45 pm
Sign-up on the Newspaper Delivery list so that you get an email confirming the deliveries for each Sunday. With winter in mind, we will only do this if roads are bare and it’s not snowing. The advantage of delivering this time of year is that nobody is hanging out in their front yards except the odd snowman.
We meet at the Capri parking lot between A&W and De Dutch Pannekoek House
Bring a large bag for carrying the papers if you want
Grab a free small Kelowna mapbook that can help you get situated. Your cell phone will be tracking and tracing you. Learn how to read maps again
You will be provided with a printed google map of the area you will be delivering to. Bring a yellow marker to indicate which streets you completed. You may run out of papers or you may end up with extra
We ask that with every paper you deliver, you remove the inserts and place them in the mailbox in front or behind the paper. That way, someone who may hastily throw out the paper will still be forced to see each individual flyer
Please deliver only one paper per mailbox, regardless if you have different papers (we usually have a combination of different papers and editions). Some houses may have up to 4 mailboxes; put one paper in each as they are for different tenants
Sign up as a Volunteer to participate in one of the many focus groups we will be organizing at our inaugural January meeting. Time to roll up your sleeves, take off the gloves and get your hands dirty!
Look for the sign-up sheet at the CLEAR booth on Saturday, Jan. 7th or contact Linda at delindalou@pm.me
3 Simple Things Freedom Activists can do to WIN this War:
Spread the Word by delivering papers and flyers everywhere:
Knowledge is power!
2. Replace your cell phone with a flip phone:
Think of your apps as TRAPS!
3. Use CASH:
Hand out the “Use cash cards” and “pay cash” business posters
————————————–
Action4Canada
Know Your Rights:
Guidelines for Peaceful Protesting/Gathering/Rallies and/or Attending Events (eg. Council Meetings, School Boards, Handing out Flyers)
The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash.
Withdraw money on Sunday from the bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.
NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
USE CASH $$$$$$$$$
————————————–
Contact Unity Health & Sciences Team to volunteer to distribute their professional brochures and Medical Doctor Packages throughout your home area, and to your medical doctor!
Not every doctor, analyst, and specialist is on the gov’t side and many have strong science and personal experiences opposing the gov’t narrative.
Even though COVID-19 restrictions are, for the most part, no longer in effect, other freedom issues have arisen as gov’ts use the cover of COVID-19 to introduce other more formidable liberty restrictions, including privacy violations.
Freedom is a multi-generational struggle – our legacy is to leave a better place for our children, not simply to quit after an issue appears to be over and anger diminishes; and of course, it rarely is truly over.
We urge you to provide designs (clear2012@pm.me) and/or your own signs for upcoming threats, including Digital ID
Digital currency and no cash
Climate change fraud
Further health, property, rights and freedoms restrictions
GLEN ALLEN, an attorney from Baltimore, is doing what I wish I had been able to do a long time ago: sue the SPLC. His case is much stronger and much more sympathy-inducing than mine would have been. Basically, the SPLC got Allen fired from his job with the city of Baltimore where he was in charge of writing appeals in cases where Baltimore lost in the lower courts (“Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’”). All it took was a simple phone call alleging that he has ideas that are unacceptable to the powers that be. In particular, he is accused of having supported William Pierce’s National Alliance in the past. As the notorious Heidi Beirich (a defendant in the case) stated in an interview, she “watched Allen ‘like a hawk’ because he had ‘the worst ideas ever created.’”
Presumably this refers to ideas like identifying with your racial or ethnic group and doing what one can to further its interests, as well as calling attention to groups that are antithetical to ideas of White identity and White interests. It goes without saying that such ideas are perfectly acceptable for every other racial and ethnic group in the U.S except Whites.
Allen’s complaint (here) is a brilliant, exhaustive account of the facts relevant to the case. I strongly recommend delving into it — it’s user friendly, even for a non-attorney. At the outset is a ringing defense of free speech and the First Amendment:
Providence has endowed humanity with the ability to grow and change. Indeed, we have a moral obligation to grow and change as we learn new aspects of reality. At the pinnacle of the means by which we grow and change should be robust dialogue, open debate, an aversion to taboos, and genuine conversation. This is the theory of our remarkable American traditions of free expression, as embodied, among other ways, in the First Amendment. But there are also other approaches to inevitable human discord. One is to draw lines of political or cultural orthodoxy, develop massive surveillance networks and extensive dossiers, and severely punish perceived transgressors who cross those lines, seem to cross them, or even seem to think about crossing them.
Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC, defendants in this case, have chosen this latter approach. Motivated by lucrative fundraising aims and employing fundraising techniques decried across the political spectrum as deceptive, the SPLC’s avowed goal, under the leadership of Beirich, Potok, and others, is to destroy, through public shaming, loss of employment, loss of reputation, and other severe harms, groups and persons the SPLC broadly defines as its political enemies.
Glen Allen, plaintiff in this case, is one of Beirich’s, Potok’s, and the SPLC’s victims. The cause of free expression itself is another, for the SPLC has become one of the most effective forces in the country for stifling honest and robust debate on controversial issues. Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC are entitled to espouse their outlook forcefully. They are not entitled, however, to the following actions, all alleged and supported in this complaint: to receive, pay for, and use stolen documents, including confidential documents and documents protected by attorney client privilege, to tortiously interfere with Allen’s prospective advantage in employment; to defame him by publishing false statements that he was “infiltrating” the City of Baltimore’s Law Department; or to masquerade as a 501c3 public interest law firm dedicated to a tax exempt educational mission, when in reality the SPLC fails the basic requirements for this favored status because of its illegal actions (including numerous instances of mail and wire fraud), multiple violations of canons of professional ethics (including improper disclosure of confidential and privileged documents and failure to train its nonlawyer employees), orchestration of violations of the constitutional rights of the organizations and individuals it targets, and sensationalist supermarket tabloid style one-sided depictions of its victims.
The reality is that Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC have perfected what the scholar Laird Wilcox, speaking of the SPLC, called “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated. They accuse others of this but utilize their enormous resources to practice it on a mass scale themselves.”
Beirich, Potok, et al. don’t even pretend to engage in honest debate and the free flow of ideas. Atty. Allen quotes Potok: “We see this [as a] political struggle, right? … I mean, we’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head, … we are trying to destroy them.” And in this case, the attempt to destroy Allen goes far beyond ethical and legal norms — not surprising given the SPLC’s sordid history of using smear tactics and hypocrisy (Section 31) as well as their dedication to fund-raising far beyond what they actually use to further their causes (Section 27).
Of course the attempt “to destroy” people and groups with ideas they don’t like has now spread far beyond the SPLC, including financial firms refusing credit card services, de-platforming on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and banning from crowd-funding sites like Patreon. As noted here several times, TOQ and TOO have been subjected to these forms of de-platforming.
At present there is an ever-escalating war against the dissident right. This war is not based on developing clearly articulated arguments designed to persuade reasonable, intelligent people. Instead, our new elite rely on wall-to-wall propaganda spread throughout the media and educational system — propaganda designed to make the traditional White majority accept its fate as a declining, soon-to-be impotent minority. Our new elite is terrified that White people be exposed to these ideas. Terrified that they will stop being ashamed to proudly identify as White and do what they can to prevent the impending disaster to White America. They are terrified because they realize that, beneath all the propaganda raining down from the media and the educational system, the emperor has no clothes — pseudoscience like: there is no biological basis for racial classifications, no biologically based race differences, and no intellectual basis for Whites having legitimate interests in creating a safe and prosperous future for themselves and their progeny.
Please Donate. It’s an Important Cause
Allen’s lawsuit will be an uphill struggle against an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets ($432,000,000 as of 2017) over and above what they have spent on their nefarious activities. Media coverage can be expected to favor the SPLC: it is routinely quoted as a respectable “civil rights organization” in the mainstream media. (In reality, the SPLC can be accurately described as a secular-sounding front for Jewish anti-White activism.) And the lawsuit has the additional burden of navigating a legal system that is now dominated by people sympathetic to its causes. As Laird Wilcox noted, “Anyone attacked by the SPLC is basically up against a contest of resources, from the ability to engage legal counsel, to the access to fairness in media treatment, to the ability to survive the financial destruction of a reputation or a career” (quoted in Allen’s complaint). See Section 27 of Allen’s complaint for the details: “The SPLC’s Dominant Objective Is Lucrative Fundraising.” In Allen’s case, there is a great need for money to finance this lawsuit. Litigation is always costly — Allen estimates it will cost at least $45,000 — a large sum, especially for someone who has lost his source of income. This estimate includes fees for a (rather brave) co-counsel. He is therefore soliciting donations at Breathing Space for Dissent LLC, an organization dedicated to resisting the deplatforming campaign by so many similar sites, such as Patreon, Obviously, this is a very worthy cause. I strongly urge people to donate.
Heidi Beirich, defendant
My Experience with SPLC Harassment
I am well acquainted with SPLC tactics. Despite realizing that I was protected by tenure rules and the First Amendment (given that I was working at a public university), the SPLC engaged in a two-year campaign, from 2006–2008, overtly attempting to get me fired. Even after this campaign, I was never far from her thoughts. In 2013 she penned an outrageous article claiming that I “glorified violence.”
In reality, as Laird Wilcox described their tactics, this was nothing more than “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated.” It was quite successful in that regard.
Heidi Beirich came to campus in the Fall of 2006 and immediately set to work getting the professors riled up against me. This was quite easily accomplished given the political views of the vast majority of academics these days. I wrote about it early on, in November, 2008, in an article posted at VDARE (“Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom”). The article included an account of Beirich’s ethical lapses — which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read Allen’s complaint — including misrepresenting my academic qualifications and quoting me out of context. Given that the SPLC’s campaign against me has continued, it’s worth thinking about whether things have improved in the last 10 years. They haven’t.
The fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.
This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the job — and a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first place — is that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.
That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled ” A hot paper muzzles Harvard.” [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:
“Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle — and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.”
It’s not that professors don’t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.
In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.
Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”
But this campaign to make me into a non-person at CSULB worked wonderfully:
Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.
I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups — who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.
My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism and to feeling guilt (as opposed to shame) for violating group norms. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.
This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It’s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.
Beirich’s presence on campus set off a storm of faculty emails, some of which had pretensions of academic wisdom. However, they would never respond to some simple statements of my position, namely:
I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn’t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?
All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus.
But in the end, as the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger:
This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It’s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.
So in the end, I’ve come to greet Heidi’s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutic — a painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West.
I survived. But the SPLC is continuing to spread its evil. Glen Allen’s lawsuit is an important way to fight back. To start to bring down this behemoth of the left. Please donate.
IF YOU HAVE LIMITED COMPUTER, PRINTER OR SCANNER CAPABILITIES… please get in touch with Mary Lou at 780-908-0309 for help.
IF YOU WANT TO FILL OUT THE FORM AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TAKE CARE OF THE REST FOR YOU… Show up at a Sunday rally at 1 p.m. at Main Street and Warren Avenue, Penticton where we will have blank printed Canvasser applications for you to complete and sign. We will then scan and email your application for you.
OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP TOSS DAVID EBY OUT ON HIS EAR
1. Make signs that say RECALLDAVIDEBY.CA and use it at the rally or put one up on your front lawn or both.
2. If you wish, you can add something else to the sign such as “Scrap Bill 36.” and/or “We need healthcare workers.”
a. If you have contacts in or near the riding, get in touch and see if you can work together canvassing.
b. It’s also good to find a place to stay for a few days while you are actively canvassing.
4. Although we generally advocate moving away from major social media because of censorship, it’s important to use the opposition’s tools to defeat them wherever possible. With that in mind…
a. Recall David Eby has a group on Facebook and on Instagram. If you have accounts with either or both, please repost and encourage others to participate.
5. Have a magnetic vehicle sign made and spread the word that way. Use it in the January 28 BC interior convoy. (Convoy details in our Penticton4Freedom emails and on our website.)
6. Sign the petition to Scrap Bill 36. Many volunteers have sign-up sheets. Come to our Sunday rally at 1 at Main & Warren, Penticton to sign the petition.
Correctional Services Canada Bans European Cultural Symbols as “|Propaganda”
Under the super woke Justin Trudeau, the federal government is riddled with those who detest European culture. On December 13, I sent Michelle Erstikaitis, a prisoner at the Fraser Valley Institutionfor Women and a person who had helped at some of our mailings years ago, a Christmas card. Inside, I enclosed a drawing in ink of a Celtic Cross with Celtic knotwork design, done a mutual acquaintance. There were no words or slogans. A date stamp on the envelope indicated it had been received on December 16. On January 9, I received the envelope and card back with an unsigned form advising me: “Within a Federal Correction Institution, it is necessary to ensure that … illicit drugs and other contraband/unauthorized items are not introduced into the institution. Be advised any items listed below found in inmate correspondence are considered unauthorised and will be returned to sender along with the entire contents of the mail.” Then, ticked off was “other” and hand written in there “propaganda.” As a final act of spite, the Christmas card was returned as well. — Paul Fromm
GERMANY IS ALREADY KNOWN for its laws banning free political debate and historical research – most notoriously for the recent decision to imprison 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck. It has become almost routine for Germany to deny basic human rights to its own citizens, while welcoming alien immigrants from every corner of the world.
Now the German authorities have again breached their basic obligations under the Schengen treaty, by which fellow Europeans are supposed to be allowed freedom to travel across its borders.
They are attempting to impose a life ban on Spanish nationalist activist and Heritage and Destiny magazine (H&D) writer Isabel Peralta – despite the fact she has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal offence in Germany.
As we reported in Issue 111 of H&D (but has only yesterday been picked up by the mainstream press in Spain), German police detained Isabel on 6th October while she was minding her own business in the central German university town of Marburg. She was served with official papers ordering her to leave the country.
It’s now apparent that UK authorities abused Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, so as to do a favour for their German colleagues. The UK authorities knew perfectly well that they had no valid reason to detain Isabel, but they used Schedule 7 as a ‘fishing expedition’ to collect political intelligence from her phone and computer, and pass it to the German authorities.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with UK law: British police and border security have become accomplices in the German authorities’ campaign of political persecution against nationalists.
Unlike post-Brexit UK citizens, Isabel is of course (as a Spanish citizen) entitled under European law (in fact under the European constitution) to enter Germany free of harassment, and for that matter to work or study in Germany.
Such rights can only be withdrawn in very exceptional circumstances: Even convicted criminals are normally entitled to these rights.
In order to expel Isabel, and now to argue that she should be excluded from Germany for life, the authorities have had to argue not that she is a criminal (because they know that she has broken no German laws) but that she is a serious threat to “national security”, because she supposedly has such high-level connections with dangerous subversives in leadership positions among the “far right”, including people who aim to overthrow the German government! https://www.youtube.com/embed/fiFIpMJoo1w
This extraordinary paranoia reflects the fact that despite the evident short-term weakness of German nationalist movements, those who govern the occupied Federal Republic are aware of their lack of legitimacy. They know that their rule since the end of (blatant) Allied military occupation in the early 1950s has been based on lies, and they fear (correctly) that Isabel Peralta, as a brave and intelligent advocate of truth, is capable of inspiring a movement among new generations of Europeans that will eventually win.
That’s why they had to invent a quite ludicrous case against her, which now aims to exclude her from Germany for life. This legal and constitutional outrage will of course be appealed, if necessary as far as the European courts.
H&D and our colleagues in several European countries have been working for the last two months on a major investigation of the extreme measures that have been adopted by the enemies of nationalism to subvert our movement and deny legal and constitutional rights. Next week we shall publish the results of this investigation.
“Responsibility to keep people safe from misinformation cannot rest in the hands of private companies. It has to be the government taking responsibility.” “The Liberal government has not done the job of making sure platforms are following the rules around making sure hate and misinformation are not being spread.
“No surprise that Cultural Action Party of Canada has a different take on the issue. PM Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have done a wonderful job of promoting hate and misinformation– against Old Stock Canadians.For nearly eight years, PM Trudeau has been assaulting the dignity of Canada’s Anglo-European communities. Anglophones, Western Canadians, Christians, farmers, truckers, oil workers, and the rest of “grass roots” Canada.
If a citizen is not “racialized,” homosexual, transsexual or a permutation in-between, Trudeau has no use for them. Except for their tax-dollars, of course.
New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh is just as spiteful as boss-man Trudeau. Somehow, this powerless political figure has found himself in a unique position.Powerless– yet powerful at the same time. Over the course of five years as NDP leader, Mr. Singh has empowered his party to zero extent. When he began, the New Democrats held 46 seats in Parliament. Today, they hold 25 seats.
Let CAP do what mainstream media never will. Namely, to juxtapose NDP party degeneration with the fact that in many ways, Jagmeet Singh holds the key to Justin Trudeau’s Woke Liberal kingdom.Seems a common thread exists between these two men. Both have unending contempt for Canadian society, and our Anglophone-British heritage communities in particular
What has happened to Indigenous people in Canada is genocide, no question about it. There were clearly systems in place designed to kill them.“ The genocide was against Indigenous people. And it is a genocide that is ongoing.”Never mind that in 2022, Indigenous Canadians are among the fastest-growing identifiable communities in Canada. As opposed to demographic free-fall that Anglophone communities are experiencing at present.
Only to unravel a further commonality: Trudeau and Singh are pushing to erode freedom of expression in Canada:“The government has a responsibility to play in making sure social media platforms are adhering to proper guidelines around misinformation, around hate, and why we have been saying for a long time the responsibility to keep people safe from misinformation and radicalization cannot rest in the hands of private companies,” said Singh.“It has to be the government taking responsibility.
”Proponents of freedom of speech beware: Jagmeet Singh wants to transition expression of opinion to full government control. The structure is what is found in communist China, via their government’s Great Internet Firewall.CAP pull no punches: it is possible that Jagmeet Singh is a greater threat to freedom and democracy in Canada than ersatz bossman, Justin Trudeau.
Together, the dynamic duo of neo-communists have 38 million Canadians by the short-hairs.In September, 2022, PM Trudeau said he is “committed to regulating the internet.”“The government believes in free speech,” said Trudeau. “But with social media there is a new way to foment anger and hate that is different from anything we have seen before, difficult to counter, and it is destabilizing our democracy.”
In CAP-land, this statement is known as a bald-faced lie. In more sophisticated terms, it’s an example of “Doublespeak,” defined as language that deliberately obscures, disguises, or reverses the meaning of words.It’s a technique that Trudeau has lifted from the communist dictators he so admires– Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro in particular.In no manner is the internet destabilizing our democracy. This tactic falls squarely on the shoulders of the authoritarian tag-team of Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
Together or apart, these two are Canada’s greatest threat to democracy. So much so that, in CAP’s opinion, the Liberal-NDP quasi-communist pact signed earlier in the year is sowing the seeds for an eventual downfall of democratic governance in Canada.“We are living in a very difficult time right now. The problem arises when disagreements are built on falsehoods or wrong factsbecause then it becomes difficult to have a real debate and genuine exchange of ideas.”
And who shall decide what constitutes falsehoods and wrongful facts? Trudeau and Singh are pushing for the Liberals to play judge and jury for what can be disseminated on the internet in Canada.China, Cuba, Soviet Union? In all cases, freedom of speech fell under absolute control of government. With commonality in the form of authoritarian governance, Canadians would do well to recognize that Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh want the very same for our country.– With files from Western Standard News.