The release of the Public Order Emergency Commission Final Report on 17 February 2023 continues to reverberate across the country. Witness Ryan Alford’s analysis that sees the report as promoting an unprecedented “crackdown on free speech” while noting that recommendations aimed at “modernizing” the reasons for invoking the Emergencies Act need to be rejected by Parliament. Then there is Jessie Kline who bluntly states the Report is a “slap in the face to Canadians” even as Rupa Subramanya declared that democracy in Canada “died a little” with the release of the Report. Could it be that all of this criticism, along with the C3RF analysis offered here, are confirmations that Canada is well down the path to becoming the world’s first “post-national state” with “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”
Rupa Subramanya, “democracy died a little” in Canada with the POEC Final Report
One could be forgiven for seeing a bit of an analogy between Trudeau’s call for Canadians to join him in celebrating a new post-national Canada and the age-old fable “The Frog and the Crocodile”. In the fable, the frog looks longingly at leaving his damp environs to traverse a snake-infested river to drier ground – in much the same way that Canada has come to look at “build back better” as the new utopia. Meanwhile, the crocodile offers the frog a ride to this new, dry utopia promising there will be no harm inflicted on the frog – in much the same way that Prime Minister Trudeau assures Canadians that transforming and resetting Canada’s economy will result in more jobs in a new, higher-tech economy. In a progressive and tentative fashion, the frog agrees to hitch a ride first on the crocodile’s tail and then on his back – ostensibly to allow the crocodile to better steer. Then the frog was convinced to ride on the reptile’s head for a better view and then, finally and disastrously for the frog, on his nose to help relieve an itch. And so it goes with Canadians as they are progressively nudged and coerced to give up their national sovereignty and civil liberties in order to realize a more sustainable and just world and be stalwart global citizens – like our Prime Minister!
Frogs and crocodiles – good traveling companions?
Canada’s journey from a free and democratic nation, primarily concerned with its own sovereign interests, to a post-national one can be seen as a progression from the tail, back, head and nose of a global beast. The jumping onto the tail of this behemoth can be seen to have occurred in 2015 when the Conservative government-of-the-day signed onto the United Nation’s Agenda 2030. Not to be outdone, the follow-on Liberal government, in the same year, would move the frog further along onto the back of the beast by signing onto the Paris Agreement. Agenda 2030 would commit Canada to prioritize its legislative efforts to accommodate the 17 Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) on the way to realizing a just world. The Paris Agreement would commit Canada to reducing its Green House Gas emissions markedly in an effort to hold global temperature increases to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Between the two, the die had been cast for Canada to forego the interests of its own citizens and embrace those of unelected authorities in faraway bureaus.
Did Prime Ministers Harper and Trudeau saddle Canadians up on the globalist crocodile in 2015?
To the crocodile’s head
As per the fable, the crocodile had to use its considerable powers of persuasion to get the frog up to its head. He beckoned by saying “Oh, come now. It’s a beautiful view! Surely you don’t think that I’m going to eat you after we’re halfway across.” The frog relented as he was curious to see the view from atop the crocodile’s head and they were past the point of no return anyway. Everyday Canadians, however, would be a bit more circumspect when it came to giving up their civil liberties to make good on globalized demands to accommodate mass migration, de-industrialization and vaccination programs. Indeed, when it came to immigration policies they would take a look at the lax and disastrous migration flows from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe in 2015 and express concerns. Did the new Liberal government realize that the “no-go zones” and violent crimes that were surging across Europe should be seen as alarm bells for Canada?
Canadians balk at traveling to the “head” of the crocodile due to safety and security concerns?
In the end, the government would have to forego persuasion in favour of nudging Canadians into acceptance through triangulation strategies designed to divide and conquer. And so it was that a very unpopular Motion M-103 was floated in 2017 to accuse Canada and certain Canadians of being “systemically racist” and Islamophobic. If rank and file citizens couldn’t be convinced to fall into line with globalist narratives they would bloody well be named and shamed into accepting them. One way or another, they would be coerced into making the journey to the crocodile’s head where they could better see the errors of their ways and atone. Naming and shaming, however, might get Canadians moving but it would not be enough to motivate the majority. Accordingly, triangulation efforts would be expanded to suppress inconvenient, fact-based counter-narratives.
Canadian House of Commons passes M-103 with little public support – too bad for us?
These inconvenient storylines would be rebuffed with campaigns that cited such speech as “hate”-based or mis/disinformation. And so we saw the advent of a “Digital Charter” to keep government-defined hate speech offline and legislation such as Bill C-11 to regulate your internet user-generated content. Such legislative efforts are proceeding in lockstep with many other initiatives from a wide range of institutional agencies that outright “cancel” the life and work prospects of wrong-thinkers. How else to explain the raft of medical doctors who have had their medical licenses suspended or canceled for offering patient-specific advice in contravention to the narratives being disseminated by their controlling colleges of physicians and surgeons? Then there are the teachers who lose their positions for questioning the woke narratives surrounding Residential School deaths. Some are even advocating such heretical speech be punished to the full extent of the law? Canadians would be herded to the head of the crocodile even if it meant the clock would need to be rolled back to the 17th century and the times of Galileo.
Heretical Canadians risk Galileo-like punishments for wrong-think?
To the crocodile’s nose
Getting the frog onto the nose of the crocodile would enable an endgame that would smash any dream of accessing a utopian homeland. Instead, the way would be open to effecting an intended reality that embraced not only the loss of freedom but a “terrific chomp” that ended the little frog’s life. In the Canadian sense, it became obvious that such a transition would require more than just a “nudge” or “controlling the narrative” as protests like Freedom Convoy 2022 made it obvious that everyday Canadians had some pesky questions that just wouldn’t go away. Shutting down such curiosity and concerns would require efforts that went beyond controlling the narrative to controlling the actual behaviours of Johnny and Janie Canuck. And so we see an accelerated rush to build global systems capable of surveilling and tracking the activities and movement of citizens respectively – systems founded upon digital IDs.
Digital IDs required to advance the globalist/ crocodile agenda?
The invocation of the Emergencies Act was instructive in this sense as it provided the backdrop that allowed Canadians to glimpse the real utopia that exists on the other side of the river – rather than the one that has been advertised to them. This was the case as the Act unleashed the federalized banking system onto the moms and pops who had the temerity to make $20 donations to Freedom Convoy 2022 “insurrectionists”. It did so by freezing their financial accounts regardless of their personal circumstances and without the due process guaranteed, until now, by the Charter. The fact that this draconian move struck too close to home for the comfort of those working with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to implement digital IDs for financial purposes was made clear when the Canadian Banking Association scrambled to escape blame. After all, it was their “legal obligation” to lock down accounts that the RCMP requested member banks to freeze. It would seem that the freezing of Freedom Convoy 2022 participant bank accounts may have provided an inconvenient and unwelcomed preview of what awaits hapless Canadians in the new post-national Canada on the other side of the river.
Angelina Mason, CBA General Counsel and VP, banks had a “legal obligation” to freeze accounts
The fact that the Liberal/NDP government of Canada is chomping at the bit to introduce digital IDs for all of us has been evident throughout the course of their handling of the Wuhan virus pandemic. Witness their working together with the WEF, the Netherlands and several airlines and airports to introduce a Known Traveler Digital Identification system and the tenacity displayed in keeping an ArriveCAN application in place even though it crashed Canadian airport throughputs. One might think that digital ID control measures are now a thing of the past as these initiatives have either stalled or been made voluntary. This is not the case, however, as we now see new efforts to implement them through Canada Health Transfer deals being made between the federal government and the provinces. The transfer of related funds will be dependent on the digitization of patient information in each participating province in accordance with Canada Health Infoway protocols – protocols that include an International Patient Summary dedicated to allowing for the transfer of your medical data, including vaccination status, worldwide. One might well surmise that the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians will be well and truly done if they jump onto the crocodile’s nose by accepting such digital ID initiatives. Chomp chomp?
Will digital ID put us all on the crocodile’s nose?
Thanks for your continued support
Your patronage makes a world of difference in the ability of C3RF to educate, advocate and act in service of preserving the individual and fundamental rights of all Canadians. It is truly unfortunate that such efforts are required but the fact remains, these rights and freedoms are coming under increasing attack from all quarters including our own legislative, judicial, media, academic and security authorities. Please know that the funds you so generously donate go directly into campaigning, events, bookkeeping, technology costs and legal advice. When these basic services are met, we use excess funding to assist other groups in advancing the cause of Canadian individual rights within a strong and free Canada. We also contribute to related legal proceedings and charitable activities when able. If you missed the call, click here to support C3RF today!
Before the crackdown of the Emergencies Act a year ago, there was a policing failure. Before the policing failure, there was a failure of intelligence gathering and analysis.
There is much to ponder, and some to disagree with, in the exhaustive report that Justice Paul Rouleau has shared with Parliament and the public on the decision by the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act to shut down the disruptive protest occupying the streets of Ottawa.
Story continues below advertisementhttps://7791faa73618a78cdc7769c74c551424.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html?n=0
We disagree, for instance, with his conclusion that the invocation was justified. Justice Rouleau is prepared to give the Liberal government the benefit of the doubt for not establishing that existing policing plans and powers were not up to the task of ending the protests. That generosity stretches too far, in our view.
Justice Rouleau does note that the factual basis for his conclusions “is not overwhelming” and that reasonable people could reach a different conclusion. And he points out that his opinion is not legally binding, and that it will be up to the courts to render a decisive verdict.
Separate from that yet-to-be-decided legal issue is the more fundamental question of how this country became so badly divided that thousands of Canadians evidently felt their only recourse was to occupy the nation’s capital, and that the federal cabinet evidently believed its only option was to curtail civil rights to oust them.
On that question, Justice Rouleau’s report makes some critical points that Mr. Trudeau, and all Canadians, would do well to think about.
One is the role of misinformation in the Freedom Convoy protests of last winter, often taken to mean the susceptibility of the protesters to conspiracy theories. But Justice Rouleau points out that misinformation moved in all directions.
There were “extreme elements” within the protest, he wrote, but “many and perhaps most” of the protesters were simply looking to protest lawfully. Yet, much of the media coverage simply lumped the protesters together with a handful that espoused loathsome and violent views.
So did the Prime Minister. As the protesters made their way to Ottawa, Mr. Trudeau called them a “small fringe minority of people” that held “unacceptable views.”
That demonization was part of an unfortunate pattern from the Prime Minister, who during the 2021 election campaign had labelled anti-vaccine protesters as “very often misogynistic and racist.” More broadly, Mr. Trudeau used vaccination as a wedge issue against his Conservative rivals in that campaign, a move that even one of his own MPs later criticized as a decision “to divide, and to stigmatize.”
Justice Rouleau is circumspect in his critique of Mr. Trudeau’s comments, inferring that he was not referring to all Freedom Convoy participants. That is an overly optimistic assessment, and one that ignores the political motivations at work for the Liberals as they sought first to delegitimize the protest by painting it as a nest of neo-Nazism, and then to tie it to the Conservatives.
But the justice does go on to point out what the Prime Minister and others should have been saying: that the majority of protesters were “exercising their fundamental democratic rights.” Encouragingly, Mr. Trudeau seems to have taken that part of Mr. Rouleau’s report to heart. Queried by reporters on Friday, Mr. Trudeau said he wished he had chosen different words. Yes, there are a “small number of people that spread misinformation,” he said. “That is a small subset of people who were just hurting, and worried and wanting to be heard.”
That is a welcome, if overdue, change of tone. Imagine how differently the campaign of 2021 and the events of last February would have proceeded if Mr. Trudeau had stuck with empathy rather than deliberate division.
Of course, the Prime Minister had company in his failure of empathy. A large swath of the Freedom Convoy protesters seemed to delight in tormenting the people of Ottawa, as if they were to blame for the deprivations they had suffered during the pandemic. The people of Ottawa returned the favour, seeing the protesters as occupiers, not fellow citizens.
That cycle of enmity did not end with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, or the dispersal of the Freedom Convoy protests, or with Justice Rouleau’s report.
Everywhere we look in Western Civilization people are being forced to affirm the false doctrines of false religions and to bend their knees to idols. A couple of years ago, in the insanity that ensued after George Floyd died in police custody, the genuflection was even literal. Today there are several dogmas which if one does not uncritically accept them all, questions them, or argues against them one will find himself deplatformed, defenestrated, and the way things are going perhaps eventually decapitated. Here are a few such dogmas:
I. The world’s climate is changing, the change will be for the worse rather than the better, it is all man’s fault and to atone for his misdoing man needs to accept a radical transformation of society and economy that will greatly lower his standard of living, eliminate most if not all of his personal freedom, and drastically reduce the size of his population.
II. The traditional category of sex which divided people into male and female on the basis of biological differences is, despite its appearance of being essential to human reproduction, a false one, invented by those with power solely for the purpose of oppressing others. The proper category is gender, which is what you think or feel that you are. This may correspond to the sex you would have been assigned under the old system, or it may correspond to the other sex, or it may be something different altogether because it is all about you and your feelings and so there are in infinite number of possibilities. Nobody else is allowed to in any way challenge your self-chosen gender and if somebody calls you by the wrong pronouns or the name your parents gave you before you chose a new one to fit your gender identity that person has committed the worst crime in the history of the world and should be completely and utterly de-personed and removed from society forever.
III. Race is also a false category invented by white men to oppress all other people. When white people speak of race or otherwise employ this category they should be told that they are being racist and that race does not exist. They are not allowed to think of themselves as a race or a distinct group within mankind except if they think of themselves as distinctively evil which they are required to do. Other groups can speak of race and think of themselves as races and are encouraged to do so. White people aren’t allowed to call this racist and preach colour-blindness to these other groups. White people are supposed to practice colour-blindness, except when they are required to acknowledge their own wickedness and the virtuous racial self-awareness of other people.
IV. If a new viral respiratory disease is circulating, even if poses no significant danger to anyone outside the group that is most vulnerable to all respiratory disease, it is alright for governments to suspend everyone’s basic freedoms of movement, association, assembly and religion, order them into isolation, shut down their businesses, and basically act as if there were no constitutional limits on their powers, in an effort to curb the spread of the virus. It is alright for the government and the media to deceive the public and spread panic in order to get people to comply, but if anyone contradicts the official line that person is spreading dangerous “misinformation” and “disinformation” and needs to be silenced.
V. The way to prevent mass shootings and other gun crimes, overwhelmingly committed with guns that are not legally owned and registered but rather stolen or smuggled, is to pass more gun legislation and take guns away from people who are overwhelmingly law-abiding.
VI. The most important and valuable way in which the people who in the old dispensation were called women but whom in the new are called birthing persons and can be of any gender can contribute to society is not by bearing and raising children as mothers but by seeking self-fulfillment in careers outside the home. That many of them think and choose otherwise in no way contributes to the wage gap between what used to be erroneously called the sexes. The only acceptable ways of explaining this gap are patriarchy, male chauvinism, and sexism.
VII. When somebody commits a crime, unless it is a “hate” crime or the perpetrator happens to be white, Christian, male, cisgender, heterosexual or all of the above, it is not he who has failed society and owes society a debt the amount and manner of payment of which are to be determined by a court of law, but society that has failed him and owes it to him to rehabilitate him, no matter how long it takes, even if it takes the remainder of his natural life.
VIII. While tobacco and alcohol, which for centuries in the case of the former and from time immemorial in the case of the latter, have been comforts enjoyed by people from all walks and stations of life even those who have had little to nothing else beyond the essentials of subsistence, have to be driven out of polite society and cancelled because they can have harmful effects on people’s health, marijuana should be enjoyed by all and a “safe” supply of cocaine, heroin and other opiates, methamphetamine and other hard narcotics along with a place and paraphernalia to use to them should be supplied by the government.
IX. Masked thugs who go to lectures given by speakers with non-approved ideas and shout them down, disrupt the event, or intimidate its hosts into cancelling, and vandals who damage or destroy statues and monuments or who deface valuable art in order to make some sort of statement that nobody gets but themselves about the environment are all legitimately employing their “freedom of expression”, but if someone says something either in a lecture in person or online which disagrees with any of the tenets of the new progressive religion this is “hate speech” rather than “free speech” and he must be silenced. Anybody who attempts to prevent the thugs and vandals from exercising their “freedom of expression” is a terrorist and should be treated as such.
X. The primary purpose of schools should not be to teach children such basic skills as reading, writing, and mathematics, much less to teach them anything about history other than how many bad –isms and –phobias the leaders of their country were guilty of in the past. Rather the primary purpose of schools is to encourage children, as early as possible, to choose a gender identity other than what would be their sex in the old, obsolete, way of looking at things, to expose them to every conceivable form of sexual behaviour as early as possible, and to instill in them anti-white prejudice or self-loathing if they happen to be white, along with Christophobia, cisphobia, heterophobia and misandry. Teachers have a duty to do these things and should not be accountable to parents.
XI. “My body my choice” is only valid in reference to when a birthing person, vide supra VI, wants to terminate his/her pregnancy, even though doing so means terminating the life of his/her unborn child. The right of a birthing person to an abortion is absolute and not subject to limitations, unlike the rights of all people to life, liberty, and property. “My body my choice” is not valid when medical experts tell the government we all need to be injected with man-made substances that have never before been used and for which there are no long-term studies because they were rushed to market in under a year.
XII. Although the relative cost of commodities is determined by such factors as supply and demand – if there are a lot of apples and few bananas, this will make apples less expensive and bananas more so – this does not apply to the means of exchange, money. Therefore government can print and spend as much money as it wants, this will not cause the price of anything else to go up. If the prices of commodities such as food go up, this is because of greedy vendors, not the government. Indeed, it is because of all the greedy businessmen who would prefer that only a few people be able to afford to buy their products rather than many or all people that government needs to keep doling out money so that people can buy things. Although this does not cause the prices of things to go up, even if it did it would still be the right thing to do, despite the fact that rising commodity prices and devaluation of currency by the unit would harm the most the people that such government spending is supposed to be helping, those with the least purchasing power in society.
In Western Civilization, which is the name given in Modern times to what has become of what used be Christendom in the days since liberalism began to wax and Christianity began to wane there, these are the main tenets of the new religion that progressives have sought to establish in the place of Christianity. That this is a fair characterization is evident from the way those who raise valid questions about the first tenet are treated. If you point out that climate has constantly been changing throughout history, that human beings thrive better in warmer climates than colder, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather is to vegetable life what oxygen is to animal life, that despite irresponsible journalists’ efforts to portray every weather disaster that takes place as a “worst ever” moment recent decades have not experienced the most volatile weather on record nor have they been either the hottest or the coldest, and a host of other similar arguments you will likely be met with the accusation that you are a climate or a science “denier”. This very accusation demonstrates that to your accuser the idea of man-made, apocalyptic, climate change is not a hypothesis that begins with observations, is supported by evidence gathered through experiments and test, and rests upon such evidence while being open to being overthrown by other evidence, i.e., science, but an article of faith which we have a moral obligation to accept.
Now I am not opposed to articles of faith. On the contrary, I think that for communities of faith such as the Christian Church, these are essential. The articles discussed above, however, are not a statement of faith to which a community of faith akin to the Church asks its members to confess, but a set of beliefs to which progressives demand adherence from all members of every civil society in the West. This is not a new phenomenon. Progressivism began as an attack on Christian kings, the Christian Church, and the throne-altar alliance in Christendom and ever since the same progressives who scream “separation of Church and State” against the old order of Christendom have sought to wed the State anew to a different religion. In early sixteenth century England this was the heretical form of Calvinist Christianity known as Puritanism. Subsequent generations of progressives have pretended that their substitute religions were not religions at all but secular ideologies. Communism is one obvious example of this. The set of propositions that American liberals and neoconservatives claim define what it means to be an American, a citizen of the first country to have a separation of Church and State clause in its constitution, is another.
Now, while Americanism is in many respects less evil than Communism, the popular idea that the new false religion that we have been discussing is a rebranding and reworking of Communism is mistaken. Communism and Communists contributed to its development, for sure. Many of the dogmas of this new false religion were spreading through the academic world decades before they spilled out into popular culture, and the Marxists who outside the old Communist bloc had more influence in academe than anywhere else undoubtedly contributed to this. Nevertheless, the new false religion of woke progressivism is more accurately described as a reworking of Americanism than it is of Communism. It developed in the Western countries that aligned with the United States during the Cold War rather than in the former Communist bloc which has proven to be relatively immune to it. While acknowledging that Cold War agents of the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc had infiltrated the West and were working to undermine it from within – Joseph McCarthy was right about this – and that academic Marxists disappointed with the Soviet experiment and the failure of the World Wars to produce Marx’s general revolution had begun revising their ideology in a more cultural and social rather than economic direction as early as the 1930s, the development of the new false religion is more directly a consequence of a) post-World War II American policy with regards to the rebuilding of Europe that tied assistance in rebuilding to indoctrination in American liberalism with the aim of preventing a resurgence of fascism, b) the United States’ having become the leading power in Western Civilization at the very moment that American liberalism was beginning to transform itself into an unhealthy obsession with racial and sexual grievance politics, and c) the concurrent emergency of mass communications technology as a medium for the spread of news and culture, newly manufactured for mass consumption in the United States. Indeed, the central tenet of the universal propositional nationalism aspect of Americanism, i.e., that anyone anywhere in the world is potentially an American if he subscribes to the propositions that define America, is the seed from which the rotten plant of woke progressivism springs. Implicit within the notion is the idea that someone who was born in the United States, to American parents, whose ancestors going back to the American Revolution were all Americans, but who does not believe all the American propositions is not himself an American or at any rate is less of an American, than a new immigrant or even someone somewhere else in the world who does subscribe to all the propositions. All that is necessary for this to become woke progressivism is for the propositions to be changed from the classical liberal ones acceptable to “conservative” Americans to the sort of nonsense contained in the twelve articles enumerated at the beginning of this essay and for the emphasis to be shifted to the implicit idea (“you do not really belong if you do not agree that…”) rather than the explicit one (“you belong if you agree that…”). While some might point out that in many places in Europe as well as in the UK and here in Canada this new false religion of woke progressivism has seemingly gone further and become more powerful than in the United States this does not rebut the fact that it is essentially a reworked Americanism but speaks rather of the weakness and ineffectiveness of the resistance to woke progressivism. Note that here in the Dominion of Canada, the most aggressive promotion of woke progressivism in recent years has come from the currently governing Liberal Party and especially its present leadership. Ever since Confederation the Liberal Party has been the party that sought to make Canada more like the United States economically, culturally and politically. The weakness of the resistance to its aggressive promotion of woke progressivism can be partially attributed to the fact that the only party in Parliament other than the Lower Canadian separatists that is not a party that takes part of the Liberal platform and pushes it further and faster than the Liberals themselves do, the Conservatives, have in recent decades been controlled by neoconservatives who share to a large degree the Liberals’ masturbatory attitude towards America and are consequently Liberal lite. The Liberal Party is a textbook example illustrating the old maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The woke Liberals such as the current Prime Minister are constantly preaching the virtues of “diversity” to us even as in the name of that “diversity” they seek to impose a stringent and narrow uniformity of thought upon us. As the great Canadian Tory historian W. L. Morton once observed, however, the ancient principle of allegiance to a reigning monarch upon which our Fathers of Confederation had wisely built our national unity already allowed for racial and ethnic diversity without the sort of pressure to conform that exists in an American-style compact society. An updated version of this observation could be that a monarchical allegiance society, allows for racial and ethnic diversity without imposing such as a dogma of faith that everyone is required to believe the way Liberal dogmatic multiculturalism does, and so the older principle allows for a greater diversity, or a more diverse sort of diversity that includes diversity of thought, than does the Liberal cult of diversity.
While I do not wish to belabor this point too much further I will observe that last week began with the entire United States with a few noble exceptions joining in the worship of a false idol. American “conservatives” and liberals alike paid homage to someone they call “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” although he, like his father, was given the name Michael King at birth and he obtained his doctorate through serial plagiarism. Everything else about the man was as phony as a $3 bill as well. He was ordained a minister of the Baptist Church even though he did not believe in the essential tenets of faith either of that Church or Christianity in general. He was launched to fame as a crusader against segregation the year after the American Supreme Court had already dealt Jim Crow a death blow. He talked a good talk about evaluating people on the basis of the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin in his “I have a Dream” speech, the only thing about him his “conservative” worshippers choose to remember, but the Civil Rights Act which he promoted and the passing of which was his biggest achievement laid the foundation for affirmative action, the racial shakedown industry, and every other sort of anything-but-colour-blind progressive race politics. Similarly, he cultivated an image of himself as someone who practiced the kind of non-violent civil disobedience preacher by Thoreau, Gandhi, and the like, but there was a great deal of coordination between his talks and marches and sit-ins and the actions of those whose preferred methodology was looting, riots, and burning cities down.
We have looked at several of the tenets of the false religion that woke progressives seek to make the new established faith of the West. We have also briefly looked at how this false religion evolved out of the earlier false religion of Americanism. The title of this essay, however, is “The Antidote to False Religion”. It is time that we turn our attention that.
The antidote to false religion is true religion. The True and Living God satisfies the longing for the divine in the human heart in a way that none of man’s inventions, made with his own hands, can do. The salvation man is in need of is spiritual salvation from sin, which has been given to us freely in Jesus Christ. The salvation through political activism, legislation, and regulation that progressivism seeks is a poor substitute. Unlike in the world of finance, where “bad money drives out good” as the law named for Sir Thomas Gresham states, in religion light drives out darkness, as it does in the literal sense. Consider the ancient world. St. Paul in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans describes the darkness of moral depravity into which the nations of the world had descended by turning away from the Creator into idolatry. Much ancient discussion as witnessed in the writings of Herodotus and Aristotle focused on the question of happiness, how a man attains it, and how he can be rightly judged by others to have attained it. The answer was not to be found in the pagan religions and the writings of Plato and the tragedies of Euripides, testify to a growing dissatisfaction with gods who were merely more powerful human beings with all the moral failings of mortals and, indeed, often more. Calls had begun to arise for reforms of the pagan religion. Into this darkness, St. John attests, the Word, Who became flesh and dwelt among us, shone as the Light of Men, satisfying the hunger and thirst attested to in the writings of the philosophers in a way that paganism, no matter how reformed, never could. The darkness of today’s false religion was able to creep back in because over the course of the past several centuries, Western man was lured into once again putting his faith in the creations of his own hands, now called science and technology, through the promise of wealth and power. Initially, the new idols seemed to impressively deliver on their promises but now they are starting to fail as all such false gods eventually do. Man now stands at a crossroads. The Light of Jesus Christ is still there calling him back. Or he can plunge himself further into the darkness of the new false religion.
There is a difference between the false religion of today and the false religion(s) of the ancient world. Ancient paganism was pre-Christian, the idolatry in which men indulged before God sent His Only-Begotten Son into the world. Concerning this idolatry St. Paul, speaking to the philosophers at Mars Hill, said “And the times of this ignorance, God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent”. The false religion of today is sometimes called post-Christian, that is to say, the idolatry into which men sink after they abandon the true faith of Jesus Christ. A more Scriptural term for this might be Anti-Christ.
It has often been said that someone who has turned his back on Christ is far harder to reach than someone who has not yet heard of Him for the first time. This seems to be true and the difficulty may be greater when it comes to nations and an entire civilization rather than just individuals. However this may be, the true religion has not changed and we must call those who have abandoned it back.
We started this essay by looking at several articles of the new false religion being dogmatically imposed upon us. Twelve of these were given and this number was chosen for a reason. Since the earliest centuries of Christianity, the true faith has been confessed in a statement we call the Creed from the Latin word for “believe”. There are two basic forms of the Creed, the Apostles’ and the Nicene. (1) Ancient tradition says that the twelve Apostles themselves composed the Creed, each contributing an article. Whether or not that is the case, the Creed consists of twelve articles, one for each of the Apostles. The Nicene Creed, or more accurately the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, composed and revised at the two first Ecumenical Councils of the fourth century, is the most universal form being accepted by all the ancient Churches. While this is a longer form of the Creed, it too contains twelve articles which mostly correspond to those of the Apostles’ (Article III of the Nicene Creed contains matter not found in the Apostles’, Article IV of the Nicene includes everything in both Articles III and IV of the Apostles’, the Descent into Hell is included with the Resurrection in the Apostles’ otherwise the Articles of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan are longer or fuller versions of the corresponding Articles in the Apostles’).
I intend, the Lord willing, to give each of these articles an essay-length exposition this year. The text of both forms of the Creed will be commented on, with the essays following the order of the Articles of the Apostles’ Creed, covering Article III of the Nicene Creed under Article II. I have not yet decided whether to do this over the next couple of months or whether to spread it over the year covering one Article a month. Either way, the purpose of the series will be to remind people of the true faith so as to call them back from the false one.
Here are the twelve Articles of the Apostles’ Creed:
I. I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
III. who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
IV. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.
V. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead.
VI. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
VII. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
VIII. I believe in the Holy Ghost,
IX. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
X. the forgiveness of sins,
XI. the resurrection of the body,
XII. and the life everlasting. Amen.
(1) The Athanasian Creed is not, properly speaking, a Creed, but is more like a commentary on the Apostles’ Creed. This can be seen in the fact that whereas the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are both in the first person, expressions of what I or we, believe, the Athanasian is in the third person, a declaration of what must be believed. — Gerry T. Neal
Large Southern Ontario Rally & Convoy Commemorate Truckers’ Freedom Convoy
About 300 people gathered on the bridge on Centennial Road over the Queen Elizabeth Way and in a surrounding parking lot to commemorate the day in 2022 that the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy reached Ottawa to protest the COVID mandates and other attacks on freedom. The enthusiasm and friendliness of the freedom fighters was amazing. The battle against the ongoing assault on freedoms — threats to free speech on the Internet, more loss of gun rights, and the threatened theft of the right to earn a living in agriculture, mining and oil and natural gas industries — is not over. There was a sea of “Fuck Trudeau” flags and banners.
This group was joined by a convoy of at least 100 vehicles from the Niagara Peninsula. The two groups merged and headed off to a Vaughan Mills north of Toronto.
Hamilton is generally known as a leftist stronghold. Yet, this past week Hamilton has seen several and loud and spirited protests outside the downtown hotel where the Trudeau cabinet was meeting. Cabinet ministers, surrounded by a phalanx of police, looked shaken as they passed through a vocal crowd of freedom fighters Tuesday night.
Maxime Bernier Hails the Anniversary of the Truckers Freedom Convoy
One year ago today marked the beginning of a historic moment in Canadian history.
The beginning of the largest human rights protest Canada has ever seen.
The beginning of the most inspiring act of civil disobedience I have ever experienced.
The Freedom Convoy.
After 2 years of government tyranny, of lockdowns and travel bans, of curfews and stay at home orders, of governments pitting families and friends against each other, of propaganda and psychological manipulation…
Brave Canadian truckers started a movement that would wake up a nation and inspire the world.
Starting in the Western heartland, they drove east. The line of trucks and cars grew as they passed through each city and province.
Patriotic Canadians gathered on highway overpasses, waving flags and raising homemade signs.
A year ago today they began to arrive in Ottawa.
The corrupt hacks and career politicians that walk the halls of Parliament were reminded that these buildings, this country, belongs to us.
They were reminded that Canadians are not just serfs paying taxes to support their insane globalist projects and inflated MP salaries.
We are a proud people not to be treated like slaves or cogs in some broken machine.
Trudeau smeared the protestors as racists and misogynists. “A small fringe minority with unacceptable views”.
The fake news media painted it as an “occupation.” They claimed the citizens of downtown Ottawa were being “terrorized” and lied about protestors committing arson and other crimes.
But I was there in person. I experienced it first hand.
And I can tell you, it was the most beautiful, peaceful, and patriotic event I have ever seen.
After two years of misery and discrimination, of being separated from friends and family, there was a special sense of love and togetherness in the streets of Ottawa.
People were proud to be Canadian again.
But just as pride and patriotism was resurging in Canada, Justin Trudeau stomped it out, like a campfire at the end of the night.
He gave himself unprecedented powers, meant to protect Canadians at times of war.
He did things that should never be done to peaceful Canadian citizens.
He weaponized the financial system, shutting down fundraisers and freezing people’s bank accounts without due process.
Storm troopers took to the streets, shooting journalists with tear gas and trampling people with horses.
Pride in our country evaporated. We were reminded the tyrants are still in control.
Even though the Freedom Convoy was violently crushed, it was still a brilliant success.
Public opinion had turned. Provincial governments started to quietly drop mandates and restrictions.
We must not forget about what the tyrannical Liberals did to us. What the NDP and Bloc Québécois enabled. What the Conservatives failed to oppose.
We must recapture the fervor and passion of the Freedom Convoy and start fighting now to make change in the next election.
We must replicate what the Freedom Convoy accomplished. After filling the streets of Ottawa with the People, we must fill the House of Commons with People’s Party MPs.
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
“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.
Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson said on Tuesday that may lose his license unless he submits to mandatory “social-media communication retraining” by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, his home province’s licensing authority.
“I face public disgrace, mandatory political re-education, disciplinary hearing and potential loss of my clinical licensing for agreeing with [Conservative MP] Pierre Poilievre and criticizing our standing [Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau,” Peterson said on Twitter.
According to Peterson, “about a dozen people from all over the world” submitted complaints to the CPO, alleging his views and comments “harmed people.” None of them were actual clients of his, but lied about it so their complaints would be accepted, he added.
“If I comply, the terms of my re-education and my punishment will be announced publicly,” he said.
“Canadians: your physicians, lawyers, psychologists and other professionals are now so intimidated by their commissar overlords that they fear to tell you the truth. This means that your care and legal counsel has been rendered dangerously unreliable,” Peterson tweeted.
Peterson was reinstated on Twitter in November, after Elon Musk bought the company and reversed many prior bans that he thought unjust. He had been locked out of his account in July 2022, for refusing to use a transgender actor’s new name and pronouns.
On December 27, Peterson tweeted that Trudeau “appears to me to be perpetually 14 yrs old,” referring to the concept of “psychological age” in his field of expertise.
The psychologist first gained national and international attention in 2016, when he was subjected to similar “re-education” pressure over his criticism of a bill that declared “gender identity and expression” to be protected categories. More recently, he has denounced the “totalitarian” lockdowns and vaccine mandates embraced by many countries – including Canada – in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. (Russia Today, January 3, 2023)
When Danielle Smith was chosen by the United Conservative Party of Alberta to replace Jason Kenney as their leader early last month and consequentially became that province’s premier she started off her premiership with a bang by giving an exceptionally great speech. Even if we had not heard a word of it we would know it to be very good from the outrage it provoked on the part of Alberta’s socialists and the clowns in the legacy media, that is to say, the print and broadcast news outlets that predate cable news, talk radio, and the internet, which in Canada are all hopelessly corrupt having been bought off years ago by the dimwitted creep and lout who currently occupies the Prime Minister’s Office. The best response to the legacy media, other than to cut oneself off from it altogether, is to look at what they are promoting and root for the opposite and to look at what they are saying and believe the opposite. So when they began to howl and rage and storm and demand that Smith apologize for saying that the unvaccinated had experienced the most discrimination of any group in her lifetime, their reaction in itself was a powerful indicator of the truth of Smith’s words.
It has now been a few generations since the old liberalism succeeded in generating a near-universal consensus of public opinion, at least within Western Civilization, against discrimination. At the time the discrimination the liberals were concerned with was of the de jure type – laws and government policies which singled out specific groups and imposed hardships and disadvantages of various types upon them. It was not that difficult, therefore, for liberalism to create widespread public opinion against it. Since ancient times it has been understood that government or the state exists to serve the end of justice. In Modern times justice has come to be depicted in art as wearing a blindfold. This imagery is somewhat problematic – blindness to the facts of the case to be ruled on is not an attribute of justice but of its opposite – but is generally accepted as depicting true justice’s blindness to factors which should have no weight in ruling on a dispute between two parties or on the evidence in a case involving criminal charges against someone, factors such as wealth or social status. If this latter is indeed a quality of justice then for the state to discriminate against people on the basis of such factors is for it to pervert its own end and to commit injustice. This is what made the old liberalism’s campaign against discrimination so effective. What they were decrying was already perceivably unjust by existing and long-established standards.
Liberalism, however, was not content with winning over the public into supporting their opposition to laws and government policies that discriminated on such grounds as race and sex. Liberalism had set equality, which is something quite different from justice as that term was classically and traditionally understood, as its end and ideal and consequently with regards to discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, etc., they adopted a much more ambitious goal than just the elimination of existing unjust laws and policies, but rather set their sights on the elimination of discrimination based on such factors from all social interaction and economic transaction and as much as possible from private thought and speech. Indeed it was this goal rather than ending de jure discrimination that was clearly the objective of such legislation as the US Civil Rights Act (1964), the UK Race Relations Acts of 1965, 1968 and 1976 and the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977). Ironically, having so expanded their anti-discrimination project to target private thoughts and actions the liberals had to move away from their initial opposition to the injustice of state discrimination. The project of achieving equality by eliminating private discrimination required the cooperation of the state and laws and measures enacted by the state in pursuit of the ends of this project were themselves discriminatory albeit in a different way from the discriminatory laws to which the liberals had originally objected.
Today, decades later, the anti-discrimination project has become even further removed from the opposition to unjust laws that had won it broad public support. “Discrimination” has ceased to be defined by specific actions or even general attitudes that underlie actions and has become entirely subjective. Such-and-such groups are the officially designated victims of discrimination, and such-and-such groups are the officially designated perpetrators of discrimination, and discrimination is whatever the members of the former say they have experienced as discrimination. Loud and noisy theatrical displays of outrage cover up the fact that a moral campaign against “discrimination” of this sort lacks any solid foundation in ethics, logic, or even basic common sense.
Liberalism, or progressivism as it is now usually called having given up most if not all of what had led to its being dubbed liberalism in the first place and adopted a stringent illiberalism towards those who disagree with it, has clearly gone off the rails with regards to discrimination. If any discrimination deserves the sort of moral outrage that progressivism bestows upon what it calls discrimination today it is the sort of discrimination that the old liberalism opposed sixty to seventy years ago, discrimination on the part of the state. If we limit the word discrimination to this sense then Danielle Smith was quite right in saying that the unvaccinated have been the most discriminated against group in her lifetime.
In early 2020, you will recall, the World Health Organization sparked off a world-wide panic by declaring a pandemic. A coronavirus that had long afflicted the chiropteran population was now circulating among human beings and spreading rapidly. Although the bat flu resembled the sort of respiratory illnesses that we have put up with every winter from time immemorial in that most of the infected experienced mild symptoms, most of those who did experience the severe pneumonia it could produce recovered, and it posed a serious threat mostly to those who were very old and already very sick with other complicating conditions, our governments, media, and medical “experts” began talking like we were living out Stephen King’s The Stand. Our governments enacted draconian measures aimed at preventing the spread of the virus that were more unprecedented – and harmful – than the disease itself. They behaved as if they had no constitutional limits on their powers and we had no constitutionally protected basic rights and freedoms that they were forbidden to impinge upon no matter how good their intentions might be. They imposed a hellish social isolation upon everybody as they ordered us to stay home and to stay away from other people if we did have to venture out (to buy groceries, for example), ordered most businesses and all social institutions to close, denied us our freedom to worship God in our churches, synagogues, etc., demanded that we wear ugly diapers on our faces as a symbol of submission to Satan, and with a few intermissions here and there, kept this vile totalitarian tyranny up for almost two years. All of this accomplished tremendous harm rather than good. Towards the end of this period they shifted gears and decided to create a scapegoat upon which to shift the blame for the ongoing misery. It was not that their contemptible, misguided, and foolish policies were complete and utter failures, they maintained, it was all the fault of the people who objected to their basic rights and freedoms being trampled over. They were the problem. By not cooperating they prevented the government measures from working. Those who for one or another of a myriad of reasons did not want to be injected with an experimental drug that had been rushed to market in under a year, the manufacturers of which had been indemnified against liability for any injuries it might cause, the safety of which had been proclaimed by government fiat backed by efforts to suppress any conflicting information, or who did not want to be injected with a second or third dose after a previous bad experience, were made the chief scapegoats. These were demonized by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in terms and tone that call to mind those employed by Stalin against the kulaks and Hitler against the Jews. A system was developed, seemingly by people who regard the beast in the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse as an example and role model to be emulated, whereby society was re-opened to everyone else, but the unvaccinated were kept under the same brutal and oppressive restrictions as earlier in this epidemic of ultra-paranoid hypochondria. Indeed, some jurisdictions imposed new, harsher, restrictions on them.
So yes, Danielle Smith spoke the truth. Our governments’ attempt to shut the unvaccinated out of society as it re-opened from a forced closure that should never have occurred in the first place was indeed the worst case of discrimination by government to have occurred in Canada or the Western world for that matter in her lifetime. Her critics in the legacy media know this full well of course. Since they hate and are allergic to the truth, which they never report when a lie, a half-truth, a distortion, or some other form of mendacity will suffice, this is why they howled with rage and fury when Smith spoke it. Hopefully, she will give them plenty more to howl at. Posted by Gerry T. NealDanielle Smith, discrimination, Jason Kenney, Justin Trudeau, legacy media, Stephen King, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports
Hi everyone. Up until now, Sarah has diligently picked up the new editions of Druthers each month for people to distribute. CLEAR has been actively involved in distributing these weekly in Kelowna, with the assistance of wonderful volunteers.
HELP!!
Sarah needs someone to pick up the Druthers from the Diamond delivery depot at 2805 Acland Rd, Kelowna
Around the first week of each month.
We need someone to pick them up now, in November and drop them off at Sarah’s place.
Can you please help? Delivery of Druthers is critical to supporting freedom in British Columbia and provides Canadians with unprecedented information and articles that MSM simply won’t touch!
Please email us at: clear2012@pm.me if you can help pick them up. There will be about 200 bundles, with 100 to a bundle.
Thank you!
————————————–
PM Trudeau – is under mind control
See his response to an unscripted question. At all times, watch his eyes – he is definitely under mind control; and listen to his answers – either someone is telling him what to say via an ear piece or some form of telepathy/mind control (see MK Ultra), or he is reading from a script somewhere to a question that was not expected and thus he did not have a prepared answer.
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.
Many myths and much disinformation have circulated for
years about our common law, our Constitution, our rights and freedoms, and other important topics.
This incredible Webinar series will finally provide irrefutable documentation confirming the true source of our property rights and the supremacy of God in our Constitution – and why we should be thankful they are NOT in the Charter!!
If you want answers to what your common law and Constitutional rights and freedoms are
Definitions and applications of the most important words in our law
Where your Constitutional right and power of civil disobedience to all unlawful statutes and orders originates
How Gov’ts and judges use “legal fictions” to steal your fundamental rights and freedoms from you
What limited rights, powers, and duties Gov’ts truly have
And much, much more…this is the Webinar series you have been waiting for!
We provide all sources of our research for verification purposes!!
By registering to this Webinar series, you will have
downloadable access to each presentation you have registered to watch!
All webinars have a password that is provided to you to access each show you wish to receive, or if you register for the series, all webinars.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau said in a statement that he intends to hold the government to account and wants the inquiry to be as “open and transparent” as possible.
Hearings will be livestreamed online and members of the public will have opportunities to share their views, with a final report expected early next year. For live streaming, see:
Recently it has been announced that as of Oct. 6, merchants will be allowed to charge customers a fee for paying by credit cards.
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!!!
————————————–
Hands-on Help!!!
Each Sunday, for as long as we can, we are delivering Druthers/Pandemic Papers Publications, including CLEAR rally cards and other important inserts such as our Masks/PCR brochure, and the recently released UNITY Health & Sciences brochure, for door-to-door delivery to all the mail boxes in Kelowna
See these inserts below
Though labour intensive, the outings are enjoyable and productive
But we need YOUR help!
There is simply no other way we can reach so many people who have believed the Gov’t/MSM narrative/lies
Join us each Sunday by signing the CLEAR Newspaper Delivery Sign Up Sheet at the CLEAR table & providing your EMAIL address to Linda & Nikki.
We need about 8-10 people to deliver about 100 flyers each – only about 90 min.
Each Sunday we will meet at a specified location to be announced by email on Saturday night. Start times will be 11:30 a.m.
Many recipients continue to thank us for delivering these to their doorsteps!
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
RCMP member sent on unpaid leave writes this powerful letter you must read
————————————–
We will not be locking down over RSV which has a 0.0000047% death rate. This is nowhere near an emergency.
You will not mask us, you will not quarantine. You will not keep kids out of school. NEVER AGAIN. -Human Rights Attorney, Lee Dundas pic.twitter.com/iyqcO1xXHG
(subject to change without notice!!! Lol – dress warm – NO SNOW!!!!)