Bars are open but not many Christian churches in Canada. Paul Fromm describes the targeting of Christians. Paul Fromm has been the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression since 1983. CAFE is dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity. The website can be found at cafe.nfshost.com
Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: canadafirst.nfshost.com
Paul lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and you can contact him at paul@paulfromm.com .
He has been an active leader on the Canadian right for 50 years and has a steel trap memory so he is a treasure and resource of information and history.
Brian Bowman, the current mayor of the city in which I reside, Winnipeg, the capital city of the Province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada, is not a man noted for his intelligence. Indeed, as far as I can tell, he is noted for only two things. The first is his close resemblance in physical appearance to Jon Cryer, the actor who before he took on the role of Alan, the anal-retentive loser brother of Charlie, the drunken letch portrayed by Charlie Sheen on Three and a Half Men was best known for playing “Duckie” in the John Hughes film Pretty in Pink. I have long suspected that this is the real reason he was elected. If only a Charlie Sheen look-a-like- had run against him. Or, better yet, Charlie Sheen himself. Yes, Sheen has been struggling with a lot of personal demons in recent years, but the late Rob Ford struggled with many of those same demons in the city formerly known as York and he was the best mayor in the whole Dominion at the time. His brother Doug rose to the premiership of Upper Canada on his posthumous coattails although Doug has subsequently proven himself unworthy of the Rob Ford mantle. The second thing for which Bowman is noted is his act of hysterical wailing and hand-wringing over the evils of racism. Unlike the problems that Rob Ford and Charlie Sheen struggled with, this precludes one from being an excellent, or even a good mayor. Bowman’s example of the performance art of racially “woke” virtue-signaling is second to none in Canada, not even that of Captain Airhead himself, although Captain Airhead, who is also the country’s foremost blackface artist, retains the championship title for hypocrisy.
Bowman has declared this week to be Winnipeg’s first “Anti-Racism Week”. The official theme of the week’s events is “What would Winnipeg look like without racism?” If the organizers of this pompous display of left-wing pseudo-piety, including our feckless, inept and dimwitted mayor, were ever to learn the answer to this question, they would be horrified.
A Winnipeg without racism would be a Winnipeg in which people were no longer treated differently from others because of their skin colour or the place of origin of their ancestors. This means, among other things, that in a Winnipeg without racism, people with white skin colour, whose ancestors came from Europe and the British Isles, would no longer be treated as if they all shared a collective guilt for racism while people of all other skin colours and ancestry are treated as if they shared a collective innocent victimhood of racism. This is pretty much the opposite of what Bowman et al. envision a “Winnipeg without racism” as looking like.
While all these people who wear their “Anti-Racism” in prominent display on their sleeves like to adopt the stance of Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru towards racism that is directed against white people, such racism is not difficult to find. Earlier this week, all sorts of left-wing personalities found themselves with egg on their faces as they rushed to delete all the tweets and other social media posts in which they had spouted off about the evil, racist, white man who had shot up a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, killing ten people, before it was revealed that the shooter was a Syrian refugee who liked to rant on the internet about the evils of racism, Islamophobia, and Donald Trump. They had, of course, assumed the shooter was a white man in the vernacular sense of the term rather than the technical sense in which physical anthropology classifies East Indians and Arabs as part of the Caucasian race. This assumption was based upon a stereotype, the type of assumption they would have been the first to condemn had somebody mistakenly assumed the perpetrator of an inner-city mugging to be black or mistakenly assumed the culprit in some major financial swindle to be Jewish.
If you think the above example to be of a relatively minor form of racism consider this next example from last week. This too pertained to comments made about a mass murder, in this case the shooting spree that a sex addict had gone on in the massage parlours of Atlanta, Georgia on the sixteenth of this month. Since most of the people killed in this earlier massacre had been prostitutes of various East Asian ethnicities many had speculated that the crime had a racial motivation although the evidence seems to be against this interpretation of the event. One person who ran with this interpretation was Damon Young, co-founder of the blog Very Smart Brothas which operates under the umbrella of the older black e-zine The Root, and author of the 2019 book What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Blacker. In a post on the seventeenth entitled “Whiteness is a Pandemic”, Young declared “whiteness” to be a “public health crisis” and “white supremacy” to be a virus which “will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it and kill it.” This is eliminationist language, the language of genocide, and the argument that seeks to explain this away as talking about “white supremacy”, a system, idea, or ideology rather than people is completely invalidated by the fact that Young uses “whiteness” and “white supremacy” interchangeably throughout his rant. Would-be defenders of Young might attempt to point to this usage as indicating that by “whiteness” Young means the system or ideology of white supremacy rather than “the condition of being white” as the term would be more naturally understood. Nobody, however, would accept that kind of reasoning as being valid in excusing the use of this sort of language in connection with “blackness” or any other “ness” other than whiteness.
This use of “whiteness”, a term that naturally suggests the condition of being fair skinned and of British or European descent, as if it was the designation of a system set up to limit power to white people and oppress all others, is not original with Young. This has been standard usage on the campuses of academe for decades now where it has always been accompanied by either calls for genocide that are cleverly excused as demands for the abolition of an unjust system or demands for the redress of racial grievances, real and otherwise, that are irresponsibly worded in eliminationist rhetoric, depending upon how much grace one wishes to extend to those, such as the late Noel Ignatiev, who use this kind of language in one’s interpretation of their motives. The University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg, both located in this city, are no exceptions to this, and, indeed, some might argue that they are among the worst universities in Canada for this sort of thing. That they are not among the first campuses that come to mind when this subject comes up is due to a dearth of high-profile incidents connected with these schools, which itself can be attributed to the national media not particularly caring about anything that goes on in Winnipeg.
The closest to a high-profile incident took place two and a half years ago when somebody put up signs saying “It’s okay to be white” on walls around the University of Manitoba. The CBC reported on this under the headline “Hate messages show up on the University of Manitoba campus”. Immediately beneath the headline is the sentence “Many students say they feel unsafe due to threatening nature of messages, union says”. Both the headline and this sentence were plainly nonsensical. The words “It’s okay to be white” make a simple, positive, assertion about white people. They do not express hatred of people who are not white or threaten people who are not white. They don’t say anything about people who are not white at all. To reject the statement “it’s okay to be white” is to affirm its negative counterpart “it’s not okay to be white”, and to affirm the latter is itself a racist act, because to say that it is not okay to be white is just as racist as to say that it is not okay to be black or to be any other race. Indeed, it is not just racist but racist of the genocidal or eliminationist type. While the left has recently decided that sex is no longer an immutable aspect of human reality, that people must choose or discover for themselves whether they are male, female or some other option, and that it is a horrible offense to reject a person’s own gender self-identification and stick to the older reality of sex, they have not yet applied the same lack of reasoning to race and so being white or black or whatever is still, for them as much as for rational people, something one does not choose, is born with, and cannot change, unless, perhaps, one is Michael Jackson, and so, the statement that it is not okay to be white is followed logically by the statement that white people must be eliminated. All of this is very obvious and all of the people cited in the CBC article – a student, an associate professor in the department of Native Studies, the head of the same department, the Students’ Union president, and the university president avoid all discussion of the actual content of the text of the posters they were denouncing. Their arguments – if you can call them that – were basically of either the “these posters are bad because they made me feel bad” or the “these posters are bad because bad people put them up” varieties. The lengthy quotation from University of Manitoba president David Barnard’s diatribe denouncing the posters left a very poor impression of the man’s intelligence and integrity. In reporting this sort of drivel, the CBC actually managed to compromise what little had remained up to that point of its journalistic standards.
Neither the explicitly eliminationist anti-whiteness rhetoric on campus nor the equation of even the simplest positive assertion about white people with hatred and threats towards non-white people appears to be of much concern to Brian Bowman and it is unlikely that his vision of a Winnipeg without racism would exclude these forms of racism. The only racism that he seems to recognize is racism directed towards BIPOC groups and even then only if it is perpetrated by whites and not by other BIPOC groups. This makes his anti-racism into something of a farce.
In Winnipeg, the emphasis of anti-racists like Bowman is on racism directed towards Native Indians. Indeed, Bowman who is white as a lily, identifies as Métis, in much the same way that Elizabeth Warren identifies as an Indian (a distant ancestor on his mother’s side was Cree). When he gave an interview about this at the beginning of his mayoral career his remarks seemed oddly racially condescending. He mentioned his mother making bannock and his getting into a fight at school over it when he was a kid almost as if these were his credentials for his racial self-identification. Many would consider this to be akin to pointing to one’s love of fried chicken and watermelon as proof of one’s blackness. In January of this year, he jumped on board the bandwagon of the “Not My Siloam” movement that sought, ultimately successfully, to remove Jim Bell as CEO of Siloam Mission, on the grounds that under his leadership the Christian homeless shelter had not done enough to promote Native Spirituality, a new religion invented in the late twentieth century that bears approximately the same relationship to the religions of the pre-evangelized Native Indians as Wicca, the twentieth century religion founded by Gerald Gardner, bears to the pre-Christian paganism of Britain and Europe. It would be interesting to know just how deeply Bowman looked into the facts of this “scandal” before getting involved. Did he ever learn, for example, that the font of most of the accusations against Bell was a disgruntled, ex-employee of Siloam, who had earned for herself a reputation within not just Siloam but the broader community of outreach to the homeless and indigent of extreme bigotry towards those who were not Native Indians, especially fair-skinned Christians of European ancestry, people of whom she seemed unable to speak without the use of pejoratives? I suspect the answer is no. Bowman’s most publicized initiative with regards to Native Indians has been his Indigenous heritage initiative. It consists of little more than looking into changing certain place names and altering the wording on certain historical markers. David Chartrand, the leader of the Manitoba Métis Federation was quoted by the Winnipeg Sun last month as being totally unimpressed, both by Bowman’s initiative and by the Year Zero, Cultural Maoist, monument toppling that was the context in which it was announced.
In recent months the broader North American anti-racist movement has been emphasizing racism directed towards “Asians”, a designation that lumps together certain nationalities from Asia on purely racial grounds despite the fact that these nationalities have historically hated each other and would have found the thought of being to be lumped together in a common identity with the others as utterly repulsive.
Needless to say, racism against Native Indians and racism against Asians are the types of racism that have been talked about most this week. The most interesting detail about these types of racism, however, has been conspicuously absent from the discussion. That detail is that explicit and outspoken racial animosity towards those of the ethnicities designated as Asian is far easier to find among Native Indians than among whites, and explicit statements of contempt for Native Indians are far easier to find among people of Asian ancestry than among whites The reason for this omission is easy to see – it doesn’t fit well into the narrative of Anti-Racism Week about how whites and only whites are the bad guys who are guilty of racism and all others are victims who must unite in solidarity against their common oppressors.
That narrative is total bunk, and therefore so is Anti-Racism Week.
Is it too late to draft Charlie Sheen to replace Brian Bowman as mayor of Winnipeg?POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL AT 6:09 AM LABELS:
It is less than two months since I posted an essay entitled “Death and Doctors” that discussed how in the depravity of modern progressive liberalism those who are supposed to have dedicated their lives to healing disease and injury, alleviating pain and suffering, and saving lives are now expected to take the lives of the vulnerable at either end of the lifecycle through abortion or physician assisted suicide. As I pointed out in that essay, both of these practices were against the law throughout most of Canadian history and the latter practice was only legalized quite recently. It was in 2014 that Lower Canada – Quebec to those who are vulgarly up-to-date – became the first province to legalize physician assisted suicide and in February of 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada once again flexed the shiny new muscle that Pierre Trudeau had given them in 1982 by striking down the law against physician assisted suicide in its Carter ruling. The Court placed a one year delay on this ruling coming into effect in order to give Parliament time to fix the issues with the law which the Court considered to be constitutionally problematic. The Liberals, however, won a majority government in the Dominion election that year and so passed Bill C-14 instead, which completely legalized the practice and, indeed, allowed for physicians under certain circumstances, to go beyond assisting in suicide and actively terminate the lives themselves. Note that while I would like to think that had Harper’s Conservatives remained in power the outcome would have been different, I am not so naïve as to be certain of that. Indeed, the week after the Carter ruling, I had discussed how the Conservatives appeared to be preparing to capitulate on this issue in “Stephen Fletcher, the Byfields, and the Failure of Canada’s New Right”.
Now, one might be tempted to think that with regards to the issue of physician assisted suicide there is not much further in the wrong direction that our government could have gone than Bill C-14. One would be very wrong in thinking so, however, as the government has just demonstrated.
On February 24th of last year, a few weeks before the World Health Organization hit the panic button because a new virus that is significantly dangerous only to the very sorts of people most likely to be on the receiving end of euthanasia had escaped from China and was making the rounds of the world, Captain Airhead’s Liberals introduced Bill C-7 in the House of Commons. David Lametti, who became Justice Minister and Attorney General after Jody Wilson-Raybould was removed from this position for refusing to go along with the Prime Minister’s corruption, was the sponsor. The aim of the bill was to make it easier for those who wanted what they are now calling “Medical Assistance In Dying” or MAID – in my opinion the acronym produced by the old convention of leaving out words of three letters or less would be more apt – but were not already on death’s door to obtain it.
As bad as the original draft of Bill C-7 was, it has undergone revisions over the course of the year since its first reading that make it much worse. The most controversial revision is the one that includes a provision that is set to come into effect two years after the bill passes into law and which would allow access to the procedure to those who are neither at death’s door nor experiencing extreme physical pain and suffering but only have severe mental or psychological conditions. Since it could be easily argued that wanting to terminate one’s own life constitutes such a condition – I suspect the vast majority of people would see it as such – the revised version of Bill C-7 looks suspiciously like it is saying that eventually everyone who wants a physician’s assistance in committing suicide for whatever reason will be entitled to that assistance.
Last week the revised bill passed the House of Commons after the Grits, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, invoked closure on the debate and forced a vote. Since the bill will eventually make euthanasia available to those with merely psychological problems, why exactly the Bloc would support a bill with the potential to drastically reduce the numbers of their voters remains a mystery. Jimmy Dhaliwal, or rather Jagmeet Singh to call him by his post-transition name as we would hate to mis-whatever anyone, announced that the NDP would not support the bill. This should not be mistaken for an example of principled opposition to physician assisted suicide for the mentally ill, it was rather an example of voting the right way for the wrong reason – Singh’s rabid hatred of Canada’s traditional constitution. In my last essay I pointed out how he, in marked contrast with the more popular and sane man who led his party ten years ago, has taken aim against the office of Her Majesty the Queen and wishes to turn the country into some sort of lousy people’s republic. Here it is his problem with the Upper Chamber of Parliament that is relevant. He did not like that some of the revisions were introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. As for that august body, the Senate passed the bill yesterday, by a vote of 60-25 with five abstentions. This is easily enough explained. Yesterday was St. Patrick’s Day, and even though the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought, its members were probably drunk. The only mystery here is, with apologies to the Irish Rovers, whether it was the whiskey, the gin, or the three-or-four six packs.
A little under a year before Bill C-7 was introduced, it was announced in the federal budget that that the Dominion government would be spending $25 million dollars over a five year period to develop a nation-wide suicide prevention service. In the fall of last year, after the information began to come out about just how badly the insane and unsuccessful experiment in locking down society to prevent the spread of a virus had affected the mental health of Canadians driving suicide rates through the roof, the government announced that it would be investing $11.5 million towards suicide prevention for “marginalized communities” that had been disproportionately affected by this mental health crisis, which they, of course, blamed on the virus rather than on their own tyrannical suspension of everyone’s basic rights, freedoms, and social lives. Apparently the government cannot see any contradiction between prioritizing suicide prevention and providing easily available assistance in taking one’s own life.
By funding suicide prevention programs the government would seem to be taking the side in the ancient ethical debate that says that suicide is a bad thing and that it is wrong to take your own life. The strongest version of this ethical position has traditionally been that of Christian moral theology. Suicide, in Christian ethics, is not merely a violation of the Sixth Commandment, as the Commandments are numbered by the Jews, the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants, but a particularly bad violation of this Commandment because it leaves no room for earthly repentance and is an expression of despair, the abandonment of faith and hope in God. In other traditions, suicide is generally frowned upon but in a less absolute way. In some traditions suicide brings shame upon the memory and family of the person who commits it except under a specific set of circumstances in which case it accomplishes the opposite of this by erasing shame that the individual had already brought upon himself and his family through his disgraceful actions, shame which could only be expunged in this manner. It is easier to reconcile these traditions with each other – preserving one’s family honour is a very different motivation from despair – than it is to reconcile either with physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide in no way resembles what would have been considered an honourable suicide in any pagan tradition. In Christian ethics, since taking your own life is so bad, getting someone else to help you do it or do it for you is downright diabolical.
Perhaps the very worst thing about Bill C-7 is that gives even more power to the medical profession. The liberalization of the Criminal Code in 1969 and the Morgentaler decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 gave doctors the power of life and death over the unborn. This was already too much power, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carter in 2015 and the passing of Bill C-14 the following year gave them similar power over the elderly and infirm. Last year, the Dominion government and every provincial government gave their top doctors dictatorial power over all Canadians, allowing them to suspend all of the basic Common Law rights and freedoms that are the traditional property of all of Her Majesty’s subjects regardless of Charter protections, power which they proceeded to disgracefully abuse as they gleefully and sadistically traded the serpentine staff of Asclepius for the Orwellian symbol of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Now, Bill C-7 is extending their power of life and death even further in a most irresponsible way. Physician assisted suicide is the foot in the door for outright euthanasia or “mercy killing”, extending the availability of the former to people who are not already dying will lead inevitably to doctors being allowed to perform the latter on those who are not already dying, and since it is doctors who get to say what is and what is not illness, mental or otherwise, the ultimate effect of this bill is to give the medical profession total and unlimited power of life and death over every Canadian. Nobody should be trusted with that kind of power, least of all the medical profession as their behaviour over the last twelve months demonstrates. Indeed, the disgrace they have brought upon their profession by their tyranny and their callous disregard for the social, psychological, spiritual and economic harm they have done with their universal quarantines, mask mandates and social distancing is such, that even seppuku on the part of all non-dissenting physicians may prove insufficient to restore their professional honour. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:46 AM
In the 2011 Dominion election, under the leadership of Jack Layton, the New Democratic Party which is the officially socialist party, as opposed to the unofficial socialist parties such as the Liberals and the Conservatives, won the highest percentage of the popular vote and the most number of seats it has ever received. While the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, won the election and formed a majority government, Layton’s NDP won enough seats to become Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, a role which, during Conservative governments, had always before been held by the Liberals. While the unpopularity of Grit leader Michael Ignatieff undoubtedly contributed to this, it was clearly a credit to the charismatic leadership of Layton himself. Sadly, he was not able to perform the role of Official Opposition Leader for long. Cancer forced him to step down from his duties and in August of that year took his life.
In the 2019 Dominion election, by contrast, the NDP’s percentage of the popular vote fell drastically, and it moved from third party to fourth party status as it lost twenty seats from the forty-four it had won four years previous. What is very interesting about this is that this was the same election in which the Liberal government dropped from majority to minority government status. The Liberal drop was not difficult to explain – the year had begun with the government rocked by the SNC-Lavalin scandal and during the election campaign itself another scandal, which would have utterly destroyed anyone else, broke, as multiple photographs and even a video of the Prime Minister, who had marketed himself as the “woke” Prime Minister, in blackface surfaced. What was surprising was not that the Liberals dropped in the popular vote and lost seats, but that they managed to squeak out a plurality and cling to power. This makes it all the more damning that the New Democrats, ordinarily the second choice for progressive Liberal voters, did so poorly in this election.
Just as most of the credit for the NDP’s success in 2011 belonged to its late leader Jack Layton, so most of the blame for its failure in 2019 belongs to its current leader, Jagmeet Singh. Despite the efforts of the CBC and its echo chambers in the “private” media to promote his brand, Singh, was clearly unpalatable to the Canadian public. Whereas a competent politician who finds himself unpopular with the electorate would ask what it is about himself that is turning off the voters and try to change it, Singh is the type who declares that the problem is with the electorate, that they are too prejudiced, and demands that they change. That this attitude, indicative of the kind of far Left politics Singh embraces – he is the furthest to the Left any mainstream party leader has ever been in Canadian politics – is itself a large part of what turns the voters off, is a fact that eluded him, continues to elude him, and will probably elude him forever.
That the contrast could hardly be greater between the late Jack Layton and Jagmeet Singh received another illustration this week.
On Sunday, a much hyped interview between Oprah Winfrey and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was televised. I did not watch the interview, as I make it a point of avoiding Oprah who, in my opinion, has done more than anybody else to turn people’s minds to mush, despite having a book club named after her. The Sussexes consist of Meghan Markle, an ambitious American actress, and her husband, the younger son of the Prince of Wales. Last year, you might recall, this couple was all over the news before they got pre-empted by the bat flu, because Markle, who obviously is the one wearing the pants between the two of them, having learned that unlike the Hollywood celebrity to which she had aspired, royalty comes with public duties as well as privilege, duties which do not include, and indeed conflict with, the favourite Hollywood celebrity pastime of shooting one’s mouth off, no matter how ill-informed one is, about every trendy, woke, cause, wanted to keep the royal privileges while giving up the royal duties, and was told, quite rightly, by the Queen, that this was not the way things were done. The couple left the UK in a huff, stopping temporarily in Canada before they eventually relocated to the United States. As I said, I did not watch the interview, but have caught enough of the highlights of it and the post-interview commentary to know that it was basically Markle throwing herself a “me party” and hurling mud at her inlaws and the ancient institution they represent, for not making everything all about her.
Sane, rational, people surely realize that interviews of this sort speak far more about the spoiled, egotistical, narcissism of the individuals who give such interviews than they do about the people and institutions criticized in such interviews. People like Jagmeet Singh, however, regard them as opportunities to promote their own agendas.
Singh, actually succeeded in making the current Prime Minister look classy by comparison, something which is exceedingly difficult to do. The only comment the Prime Minister made following the interview was to say “I wish all members of the Royal Family the very best”. Singh, however, ranted about how he doesn’t “see the benefit of the monarchy in Canadians’ lives”. As with Markle’s interview this comment says far more about the person who made it than the institution he seeks to denigrate.
To fail to see the benefit of the monarchy in Canadians’ lives is to fail to see any benefit to Canadians in a) having their country remain true to her founding principles, b) having a non-political head of state, or c) having an institutional connection to the United Kingdom, Australia, and the other Commonwealth Realms that in no way impedes our country’s sovereignty over her own domestic affairs and international relationships. To fail to see any benefit in any of this is to display one’s own blindness.
That Canada’s founding principles require her to retain the monarchy is an understatement. Loyalty to the monarchy is the founding principle of Canada, at least if by Canada we mean the country that was founded in 1867. Quebec nationalists like to point out that Canada was first used for the French society founded along the St. Lawrence long before Confederation, which is true enough, but the conclusions they draw from this are contradictory non-sequiturs. At any rate, the original French Canada was, most certainly, a society under a monarch, the monarchy of France, and, contrary to the delusions of the Quebec nationalists who are products of the “Quiet Revolution” (against traditional, Roman Catholic, Quebecois society and culture), it was not moving in the direction of the French Revolution when the French king ceded Canada to the British king after the Seven Years War, a fact that is evinced by Quebec’s remaining ultramontane in its Catholicism and seigneurial in its society long after the Jacobins had done their worst in France. Before Confederation began the process of uniting all of British North America into the Dominion of Canada in 1867 – the Canada we speak of as Canada today – an English Canada, in addition to a French Canada, had come into existence, and this English Canada grew out of the United Empire Loyalists, that is to say, those among the Thirteen Colonies which revolted against Britain and become the United States who remained loyal to the Crown, and fled to Canada to escape persecution in the new republic. They were able to flee to Canada because French Canada, although the ink was barely dry on the treaty transferring Canada from the French king to the British, did not join in the American Revolution against the Crown which had, to the upset of the American colonists, guaranteed its protection of their culture, language and religion. During Confederation, the Fathers of Confederation, English and French, unanimously chose to retain a connection to the larger British Empire and to make the Westminster system of parliamentary monarchy our own (it was Canada’s own Fathers of Confederation, not the Imperial government in London, who brought all of this into the Confederation talks, and, indeed, when the Fathers of Confederation wished to call the country “The Kingdom of Canada”, London’s input was to suggest an alternative title, leading to the choice of “The Dominion of Canada’). It is the Crown that is the other party to all of the treaties with the native tribes, who generally, and for good cause, respect the monarchy a lot more than they do the politicians in Parliament. At several points in Canadian history, both on the road to Confederation, such as in the War of 1812, and after Confederation, such as in both World Wars, English Canadians, French Canadians, and native Canadians fought together for “king and country”. The monarchy has been the uniting principle in Canada throughout our history. To reject the monarchy is to reject Canada.
That anybody in March of 2021 could fail to see the benefit of having a non-political head of state demonstrates the extent to which ideology can blind a person. Four years ago, the American republic had an extremely divisive presidential election after which the side that lost refused to acknowledge the outcome, spent much of four years accusing the winner of colluding with a foreign power – Russia – to steal the election, and giving its tacit and in some cases explicit approval to violent groups that were going around beating people up, using intimidation to shut down events, and rioting, because they considered the new American president to be a fascist. Last year, they held another presidential election which was even more divisive, with a very high percentage of Americans believing the election was stolen through fraud, with the consequence that Congress had to order a military occupation of their own capital city in order to protect the inauguration of the new president against their own citizens. This is precisely the sort of thing that naturally ensues from filling the office of head of state through popular election, politicizing an office that is supposed to be unifying and representative of an entire country. This is not the first time in American history that this has happened. Less than a century after the establishment of the American republic, the election of the first president from the new Republican Party led to all of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line seceding from the American union and forming their own federation, which the United States then invaded and razed to the ground in the bloodiest war in all of American history. Generally, when a country replaces its hereditary monarchy it initially gets something monstrously tyrannical which may eventually evolve into something more stable and tolerable. When the British monarchy was temporarily abolished after the English Civil War and the murder of Charles I, the tyranny of Cromwell was the result, which was fortunately followed by the Restoration of the monarchy. In France, forcing the Bourbons off the throne resulted in the Jacobin Reign of Terror. The forced abdication of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties after World War I led directly to the rise of Adolf Hitler, whereas the fall of the Romanovs in Russia brought about the enslavement of that country to Bolshevism. To wish to get rid of the hereditary monarchy in Canada is to fail to learn anything at all from history.
I won’t elaborate too much on the third point. Either you see an advantage in the Commonwealth arrangement in which the Realms share a non-political, hereditary monarchy, but each Realm’s Parliament has complete control of its own affairs, or you do not. Jagmeet Singh does not appear to care much for Canada’s relationship with other Commonwealth countries. Take India for example. The relationship is a bit different because India is a republic within the Commonwealth rather than a Commonwealth Realm, but it still illustrates the point. As embarrassing as the present Prime Minister’s behaviour on his trip to India a few years ago was, the relationship between the two countries would be much worse in the unlikely event Jagmeet Singh were to become Prime Minister. He would probably not even be allowed into India. Eight years ago he was denied an entry visa – the first elected member of a Western legislature to be so denied – because of his connection with the movement that wishes to separate the Punjab from India and turn it into a Sikh state called Khalistan, a movement that is naturally frowned upon in India where it has been responsible for countless acts of terrorism (it has committed such acts in Canada too). Asked about it at the time, Singh placed all the blame for any harm done to the two countries relationship on India.
Which leads me back to where this essay started. Just as Singh could not see that his support for the movement that produced the bombing of Air India Flight 182 in 1985 may possibly be a legitimate reason for India to ban him from their country and blamed any deterioration in the relationship between the two countries on India, so he cannot see that anything he has said or done could possibly be a reason why his party did so poorly in the last Dominion election and places the blame on the prejudices of Canadians.
If by some miracle he were to come a self-awaking and realize that instead of demanding that Canadians change in order to accommodate him that there might be something objectionable about him that he ought to be trying to fix, a logical step for him to take would be to try and emulate the last leader in his own party who truly had popular appeal. If he were to do so, he would learn that that leader had a radically different attitude toward our country’s founding principles and fundamental institutions than his own.
The Honourable Jack Layton, the son of former Progressive Conservative MP Robert Layton, had this to say:
Some people think the NDP may want to get rid of the monarchy but I assure you that’s absolutely not the case. My dad was a big time monarchist and so am I.
Jagmeet should try to be more like Jack. He would be less of an ass if he did.
Rather than end the authoritarian, anti-democratic lockdowns, Trudeau and the corrupt political class continue to double-down on ruthless government power.
Justin Trudeau is escalating the authoritarian language surrounding the endless lockdowns being imposed on Canadians.
In the video below, Trudeau says “not following the rules” could mean “prison time.”
As I pointed out on Twitter, Trudeau only makes this threat after politicians are returning home, and are thus protected from it being imposed on them:
“Now that all the politicians are coming back from their vacations, Trudeau threatens prison time for those who break the rules. Of course, that threat only comes after politicians are safely protected from it.”
Now, the answer to hypocritical politicians travelling isn’t to place more restrictions on Canadians.
The answer is to end the lockdowns, end the restrictions on Canadians, make all of these recommendations voluntary.
Consider that the politicians are still claiming that the Charter protects the right to travel, which is correct.
However, if we have the right to travel outside the country and come back, then we must also have the right to travel freely within the country.
And that means we have the right to keep our businesses open, visit our families, and gather with whomever we want.
It is impossible to justify restrictions within our country while keeping the borders and airports open.
To end this hypocrisy, we must end the restrictions, and respect the freedom of Canadians to make our own individual choices.
Rather than end the authoritarian, anti-democratic lockdowns, Trudeau and the corrupt political class continue to double-down on ruthless government power.
Justin Trudeau is escalating the authoritarian language surrounding the endless lockdowns being imposed on Canadians.
In the video below, Trudeau says “not following the rules” could mean “prison time.” https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=SpencerFernando&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1346509428644851712&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fspencerfernando.com%2F2021%2F01%2F05%2Fwatch-trudeau-says-not-following-the-rules-could-mean-prison-time%2F&siteScreenName=SpencerFernando&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
As I pointed out on Twitter, Trudeau only makes this threat after politicians are returning home, and are thus protected from it being imposed on them:
“Now that all the politicians are coming back from their vacations, Trudeau threatens prison time for those who break the rules. Of course, that threat only comes after politicians are safely protected from it.” https://platform.twitter.com/embed
Now, the answer to hypocritical politicians travelling isn’t to place more restrictions on Canadians.
The answer is to end the lockdowns, end the restrictions on Canadians, make all of these recommendations voluntary.
Consider that the politicians are still claiming that the Charter protects the right to travel, which is correct.
However, if we have the right to travel outside the country and come back, then we must also have the right to travel freely within the country.
And that means we have the right to keep our businesses open, visit our families, and gather with whomever we want.
It is impossible to justify restrictions within our country while keeping the borders and airports open.
To end this hypocrisy, we must end the restrictions, and respect the freedom of Canadians to make our own individual choices.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
***
If you want to support my independent perspective, you can Donate through Paypal at the button below:
Follow Spencer Fernando on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/v2.3/plugins/page.php?app_id=249643311490&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Dfaef70c72c1a88%26domain%3Dspencerfernando.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fspencerfernando.com%252Ff8c10323069a9%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=270&height=130&hide_cover=false&hide_cta=false&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FSpencerKFernando%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&show_facepile=false&small_header=false&tabs=false&width=340 Search for: National Citizens Coalition
Spencer Fernando is writing a weekly column as a Campaign Fellow for the National Citizens Coalition. Visit their website at the link below:
Rather than end the authoritarian, anti-democratic lockdowns, Trudeau and the corrupt political class continue to double-down on ruthless government power.
Justin Trudeau is escalating the authoritarian language surrounding the endless lockdowns being imposed on Canadians.
In the video below, Trudeau says “not following the rules” could mean “prison time.” https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=SpencerFernando&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1346509428644851712&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fspencerfernando.com%2F2021%2F01%2F05%2Fwatch-trudeau-says-not-following-the-rules-could-mean-prison-time%2F&siteScreenName=SpencerFernando&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
As I pointed out on Twitter, Trudeau only makes this threat after politicians are returning home, and are thus protected from it being imposed on them:https://534d9044fffbac09844d96093f7b6ece.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
“Now that all the politicians are coming back from their vacations, Trudeau threatens prison time for those who break the rules. Of course, that threat only comes after politicians are safely protected from it.” https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=SpencerFernando&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1346617805689425920&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fspencerfernando.com%2F2021%2F01%2F05%2Fwatch-trudeau-says-not-following-the-rules-could-mean-prison-time%2F&siteScreenName=SpencerFernando&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
Now, the answer to hypocritical politicians travelling isn’t to place more restrictions on Canadians.
The answer is to end the lockdowns, end the restrictions on Canadians, make all of these recommendations voluntary.
Consider that the politicians are still claiming that the Charter protects the right to travel, which is correct.
However, if we have the right to travel outside the country and come back, then we must also have the right to travel freely within the country.
And that means we have the right to keep our businesses open, visit our families, and gather with whomever we want.
It is impossible to justify restrictions within our country while keeping the borders and airports open.
To end this hypocrisy, we must end the restrictions, and respect the freedom of Canadians to make our own individual choices.
Trudeau defends the right to protest in India as Canadians are arrested and fined for doing the same
He’s sucking up to another privileged minority — the Sikhs. In his first Cabinet, there were 4 Sikhs or 16%, but the constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population. These farmers are mostly Sikhs.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released a statement Tuesday morning expressing support for striking farmers in India.
Hundreds
of thousands of farmers in India have taken to the streets to protest
proposed agricultural laws which they argue will destroy their
livelihoods. The laws seek to deregulate crop pricing, which the
government says will break up monopolies, but opponents suggest will
leave farmers at the mercy of large corporations.
“Canada will
always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest,” Trudeau said
in his statement. He described the situation as “very concerning,”
further noting that he has “reached out to Indian authorities to
highlight” Canada’s concerns.
Meanwhile, Canadians who protest
against the government have frequently been subject to fines for
breaking coronavirus-related lockdown restrictions. An Independent MPP
in Ontario was recently handed a fine
for organizing a protest at Queen’s Park, the province’s legislature,
while the organizer of an anti-lockdown protest in Chatham-Kent, Ontario
was fined for organizing to oppose government lockdown restrictions.
A man in Etobicoke, Ontario who attempted to open his barbeque business was handed criminal charges for refusing to comply with lockdown orders, an event which gained significant media traction.
Measures
have been taken outside of Ontario to restrict freedom of assembly as
well. A man was fined in Saskatoon earlier this month for protesting against mask mandates, while the Manitoba government has promised to do the same to protesters in their province.
Also
in Manitoba, RCMP were sent to physically block the highway entrance to
a church which was attempting to host a Sunday prayer service.
Churchgoers were even prevented
from listening to the service from their own cars in the parking lot
due to the possibility of spreading coronavirus. According to Manitoba’s
Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin, gatherings of cars are
dangerous for the spread of coronavirus because some people might need
to use the bathroom, and more than one household may be present in a
single vehicle.
The
lockdown measures restricting the freedom of assembly guaranteed in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are meant to prevent the spread
of coronavirus. Yet despite having more than 9.4 million confirmed
cases of the virus, Trudeau has encouraged protests in India while
remaining silent as protesters are fined and arrested in Canada.
A spokesman from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned Trudeau’s comments, describing them as “ill-informed” and “unwarranted.”
Nineteenth century Scottish writer Robert Louis
Stevenson is remembered mostly for his novels Treasure Island, featuring the pirate Long John Silver, and Kidnapped. Almost as well-known as these, and probably
far more influential in terms of the number of imitations it has inspired and
adaptations that have been made, is a shorter work, published in 1886, the same
year as Kidnapped, entitled Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
(1).
The story is about a physician, Dr. Henry Jekyll, who
like everybody else, struggles with the inner conflict between his base
instincts and urges on the one hand and his ethical standards on the other. Unlike everybody else, he, being a scientist,
tries to find a scientific solution to the problem, which he sees more in terms
of the need to protect his reputation than to suppress his vicious
desires. He invents a serum that
transforms him into Mr. Edward Hyde so that he can indulge the latter without
damaging his reputation. The potion,
however, also produces a division in his moral character, basically separating
all the wickedness into the persona of Mr. Hyde and all of the goodness into
the persona of Dr. Jekyll. The
consequence of all of this, is that Mr. Hyde is left with no inner constraints
on his wickedness, and becomes a thoroughly depraved, sadistic, sociopathic,
murderer. Dr. Jekyll, who by contrast
becomes more upright, humane and saintly, eventually loses control over the
transformation process and starts to transform into Mr. Hyde involuntarily, at
first in his sleep, later when he is awake.
Then, running out of the serum that reverses the transformation, and
being unable to produce another batch that will work, he realizes that he is
about to become his evil alter-ego permanently, and commits suicide.
After the story was published and became widely known,
the names of the character became more or less synonymous with the kind of dual
personality in which a person can be sweet, gentile, and charming one minute
and the exact opposite of that the next.
I have been reminded of this story every time that
Doug Ford, the current premier of Upper Canada, or Ontario as those who like to
keep up with the times prefer to call it, has appeared in the news in the last
eight months and especially the last two.
Two summers ago, when the Progressive Conservatives
led by Doug Ford, won a majority of 76 out of the 124 seats in the provincial
legislature, I breathed a sigh of relief for our neighbours to the east. They had suffered under Grit misrule for
fifteen years, first under Dalton McGuinty and then under Kathleen Wynne, who
were in my opinion the two worst provincial-level Liberal leaders in the entire
history of the Dominion. The election
that put Doug Ford in the premier’s chair, also reduced the Grits to seven
seats, the worst defeat they have ever suffered in that province, which was
itself even greater cause to rejoice than the Conservative victory.
When Doug Ford became leader of Upper Canada’s
Progressive Conservatives in the lead-up to the provincial election of 2018, I
knew little about him other than that he was the brother of the late Rob Ford,
who from 2010 to 2014 had been mayor of the city which had been known as York
before political correctness prompted its being rechristened with the Indian
name of Toronto in 1834. During the
years in which Rob Ford was mayor, he was constantly under attack by the CBC
and the rest of the mainstream progressive media, which only strengthened me in
my conviction that, as I said at the time, Rob Ford, drunk and on crack, ran
his city better than any other sober mayor in Canada, including and especially
our own here in Winnipeg. That would
have been Sam Katz back then, and Mayor Duckie (2) who has since replaced him
is even worse.
The same corrupt left-wing media that had relentlessly
pursued the destruction of his brother, went after Doug Ford during the 2018
election. They shamelessly dug poor old
Rob up from his grave – he had passed away from cancer two years previously –
and began whipping and crucifying his corpse.
Since Ford was using populist rhetoric in his campaign, they naturally
compared him to Donald the Orange who through populism and nationalism had
become president of the American republic in 2016. Now,
just to be clear, since my politics happens to be the royal-monarch-as-defender-of-the-Church
kind of Toryism from which the Conservative Party has been lamentably drifting
for decades – or rather centuries – populism and nationalism are actually lower
in my own estimation than they are in that of the progressive media. Forced to choose between the former and the
latter, however, I would gladly chose the populists any day. So it was that this progressive assault on
“Ontario’s Trump” raised his stock considerably in my books.
Despite the media’s amusing attempt to use his
populist rhetoric to hang the “far right” label on him – neither populism nor
what the media considers to be “far right” is right wing at all, let alone
extremely right wing – Doug Ford was
basically a mainstream, centre-right, Progressive Conservative. His platform consisted mostly of tax
reductions, infrastructure improvement, de-regulation, and cleaning up the mess
that McGuinty and Wynne had made of the province’s school system. While there was much that was lacking in
this platform, it was a major improvement over what the former governing party
had been offering. After Ford won the
election, the first year and a half of his premiership were fairly
impressive. He stuck it to the
provincial bureaucrats with a salary-and-hiring freeze, and went to war with
the environazis who were determined to make life more miserable and
unaffordable for everybody because of their superstitious belief in a climate
apocalypse extrapolated through a computer simulation from the pseudoscientific
theory of anthropogenic global warming.
This included standing up to Captain Airhead, whom we are unfortunate
enough to have as the Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s government in Ottawa, and
who was threatening to impose a federal carbon tax on all provinces that did
not voluntarily adopt one of their own.
Shortly after the election, the new Minister of Education announced that
the province would repeal everything the outgoing government had done to turn
the schools into indoctrination camps for brainwashing young children with
sexual perversion and gender identity politics although there have been reports
that the follow-through on this was less than spectacular and that all they
really did was make a few minor adjustments.
(3)
The qualifying remarks in my last sentence
aside, Ford had gotten off to a fairly good start for a contemporary,
mainstream, Progressive Conservative premier.
Then the Chinese bat flu arrived in Upper Canada. When that happened, Doug Ford underwent an
almost-overnight metamorphosis into a despotic, bullying, COVID-monster, and
became the darling of the media that had been demonizing him for the last two
years.
Of course, something similar could be said about every
premier in the Dominion. Our own Progressive
Conservative Premier here in the south-east corner of Prince Rupert’s Land, Brian
Pallister, declared a state of emergency and put our province into a most
draconian lockdown before there was any significant outbreak, gave that – in my
opinion – power mad goon Dr. Brent Roussin a blank cheque for imposing
restrictions, no matter how stupid, self-contradictory, and outright harmful
they were, and only the other day doubled the fines for people who violate
these arbitrary regulations. Pallister,
however, has long been known to be a jerk.
The only reason I welcomed his re-election the other year is that the
other option was the truly odious Wab Kinew.
Doug Ford, on the other hand, had given us every reason to expect much
better of him, before he turned around and started acting like a squirt bottle
used for cleaning the orifices of the nether regions of the body.
Now, some might come to Doug Ford’s defence by saying that
his province was hit particularly hard by the bat flu. Granted, out of all the provinces its number
of deaths was exceeded only by those of Lower Canada. This hardly constitutes justification of his
actions, however. It is only to be
expected that in a country-wide outbreak, the two provinces of Central Canada
would have the most deaths. They have
the most people, after all. There is
more to it, however, than just that.
The bulk of the deaths in those provinces took place in long-term care
facilities, which, again, is predictable from the fact that the only people who
are at any sort of statistically
significant risk from the Chinese bat
flu are those who are really old, with two or more complicating health
conditions. In Upper and Lower Canada,
the situation in the nursing homes got so bad that the Armed Forces had to be
sent in to take the place of the staff who had either contracted the virus
themselves or deserted in fear of doing so.
They sent back to their superiors reports of the horrendous conditions
they found there – conditions such as cockroaches, rotting food, bedding left
soiled for days on end, and worse – caused not by the bat flu but by neglect
and abuse on the part of the administration and staff. While Ford is hardly to blame for such
conditions, for in many of these places this sort of thing had been going on
for years prior to his premiership, the fact of the matter is that had he done
the common sense thing at the beginning of the “pandemic” and taken measures to
provide extra protection for the people most at risk, rather than listening uncritically
to the imbecilic advice of medical experts who, themselves regurgitating
nonsense cooked up by the World Health Organization to serve the nefarious ends
of the Chinese Communists and the pharmaceutical conglomerates, recommended a universal
quarantine on the young and healthy instead, this sort of thing could have been
dealt with much earlier, and steps could have been taken which might have prevented
the outbreaks in the nursing homes from getting so bad. Jumping on board the lockdown bandwagon,
prevented him from pursuing other, sounder, options, and made the situation
even worse.
When the World Health Organization screamed “pandemic”,
Ford traded in his tired old populism and common sense for a shiny new superstitious
belief in the infallibility of international health organizations and other
medical experts, and imposed their recommendations with a particularly heavy
hand. When people with legitimate
concerns about the erosion of their rights, freedoms, livelihoods and businesses
under public health orders and who likely largely overlapped the people who had
voted Ford into the premier’s office two years ago, began to protest against social
distancing, lockdowns, and the like, he dismissed them all as yahoos. In July, he rammed Bill 195 through the legislature,
a bill which gave him two years’ worth of emergency powers which he could
exercise without consulting the legislature.
This was a province-level equivalent of what Captain Airhead and his
Liberals had tried to sneak into an emergency spending bill in Parliament in
March, but which Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition had mercifully thwarted. Ford punished the members of his own party
who voted against this bill, such as Belinda Karahalios, the MPP representing
Cambridge, by expelling them from the caucus.
On Monday, September 28th, Ford held a
press conference in which he announced that his province was officially in the “second
wave” of the bat flu, and that it “will be worse than the first wave we faced
earlier this year.” As with all the other
claptrap about this so-called “second wave” this was a cunning form of
sleight-of-hand. That day, Upper Canada
had seen the highest number of new cases recorded in a single day since the
beginning of the pandemic. It had not
seen a commensurate spike in the number of people gravely sick, being
hospitalized, put in intensive care, and dying. Indeed, the new cases were mostly among age
groups which were not at any significant risk from the disease. This has been more or less the case
everywhere throughout this so-called “second wave”. My province, which seen the number of deaths
multiply since the beginning of September – we were at fourteen at the
beginning of September and are now at forty-seven, is not an exception. These deaths are, like those which more
populated provinces experienced in the spring, almost entirely among those who
are both extremely old and extremely sick, because this is Manitoba’s first
wave, the entire misguided and totalitarian “flatten the curve” strategy having
merely delayed it, while causing a whole lot of unnecessary other harm in the
process.
Even before Ford made this announcement, he had
lowered the number of people allowed to meet socially in Toronto, Peel Region,
and Ottawa to ten, slapped a $10 000 fine on anyone who organized an event that
broke this rule, and a $750 fine on anyone who attended. It is difficult to decide which is more
ridiculous, the limit of social gatherings to ten in a country where assembly and
association are two of the officially recognized fundamental freedoms, or the
insanely high amounts of those fines. (4) Certainly,
the late Rob Ford, who was well known for his love of large social gatherings,
must be spinning in his grave over all this party-pooping, and the whole
general way in which his brother has turned into a piece of rotting Communist excrement.
My unsolicited advice to Ford is to find the serum
that will turn him back to his original self and to do so quickly. Nobody, except the media progressives, who
want everybody to spend the rest of their lives, hiding under their beds in
their basements, curled up in the fetal position, sucking their thumbs, afraid
to go out lest the SARS-Cov-2 Bogeyman get them, likes this new version.
(1) Stevenson
deliberately left out both the definite article and the periods after the
abbreviations for doctor and mister from his title. His original publisher followed his
whims. Most subsequent publishers have
not.
(2) Brian Bowman looks like Jon Cryer, who, prior to his role as Alan on Three and a Half Men, was best known as
“Duckie” in John Hughes’ 1986 “Brat Pack” teen rom-com, Pretty in Pink. An
interesting bit of trivia, although as completely irrelevant as this entire
footnote, is that Charlie Sheen, Cryer’s co-star in Three and a Half Men (and earlier in Hotshots), was the original choice for the role of Blane, “Duckie”’s
ultimately successful rival for the affections of Andie (Molly Ringwald) in
this film, a role that ended up going to Andrew McCarthy.
(3) See
this
article from The
Interim. It is worth noting that a
serious effort to clean up the schools would have to involve more than just
repealing Kathleen Wynne’s curriculum.
I was in Toronto for a wedding almost ten years ago, while Dalton
McGuinty was still premier. On the ride
back to Pearson International, my driver, a recent immigrant from somewhere in
the Middle East, struck up a conversation.
When he found out I was from Manitoba, he told me how lucky I was to be
living in a rural, conservative, province, where I did not have to put up with
the likes of Dalton McGuinty, who was making the schools teach sexual
perversions to young children. I didn’t
have the heart to break the news to him, that the NDP which was governing
Manitoba at the time was just about as bad, although they had not taken the
schools quite that far. My point, however,
is that this conversation could not have taken place when it did, had McGuinty
not already started the schools along the path down which Wynne would take them
much further.
(4) Of
course there are those who have gone even further than Ford in this
absurdity. Dr. Brent Roussin has
limited social gatherings to five in Winnipeg and the surrounding region. Back in Ford’s own province, Patrick Brown,
his predecessor as PC leader and currently the mayor of Brampton, imposed fines
of up to $100 000 on those not practicing “physical distancing” as far back as
April. An orchard owner in neighbouring
Caledon was threatened with a fine that large by the Ontario Provincial Police in
late September for letting people pick their own apples on his farm.
Some China-style media management by the Trudeau PMO.
On the same day that Canada’s justice system showed independence and
commitment to the rule of law by being indifferent to CCP threats and
ruling on the Meng Wanzhou extradition challenge, Justin Trudeau appears
to be once again emulating the Chinese dictators he loves so much.
Rebel News reporter Keean Bexte was let into a Trudeau press
conference by security. And, considering a judge had ruled that The
Rebel had the right to report on the news just like anyone else, it is
of course the democratic right of Canadians to ask questions and report
on the PM.
Yet, when PMO stooges saw Bexte at the press conference, the Trudeau
RCMP dragged Bexte away, pushing some China-style ‘media management.’
This is incredibly disturbing and dangerous. The PM is using the
police to block journalists he doesn’t like from reporting on what he
says, which is of course totally anti-democratic and anti-Canadian.
China might approve of this kind of authoritarian behaviour, but it’s not supposed to work like this in Canada.
Once again we see that Trudeau wasn’t joking when he said he admired ‘China’s basic dictatorship.’
You can watch the video below:
“UNBELIEVABLE:
PM Justin Trudeau had me literally dragged out of his press conference
to avoid questions. I was officially let in by security, but when
Trudeau’s henchman saw me, the PMO sicced the RCMP on me. A journalist.
Democracy is dead in Canada. Vid: https://youtu.be/quLkAj5fYUE“
in mid-April, spontaneous anti-lockdown protests sprang up
across Canada. People attending expressed concerns about many issues, but the
attack on free speech was one of them. As reported last month, Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc,
a close ally of Justin Trudeau, had
talked about legislation criminalizing spreading misinformation over the Internet about the coronavirus that could harm the public. As
contradictions in the government’s propaganda became obvious — at first, no
restrictions on travel from China (if you made such a proposal, you were a
“racist”)
and
the WHO said face masks do no good
— many began to suspect they’d been deceived. Canadians have been terrified
into accepting lockdowns, restrictions of their mobility rights, restrictions on
their right to earn a living or run a business and even virtual banning of
religious gatherings.
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island restrict travel by
Canadians to their provinces. In Ontario, one Shanker Nesathurai, medical officer of health for Haldimand and
Norfolk counties issued a public health order (later rescinded when threatened
with of legal action) banning cottagers, under threat of $5,000 fines from
going to the cottages they own on Lake Erie. (National Post, May 16, 2020) The same issue of the Post showed a picture of
menacing signage at Port Stanley on Lake Erie: “Beach Closed. Restricted Area. No trespassing under penalty of
law!” So, people are banned from public beaches. Yet, sunlight helps
kill viruses. Everywhere, swaggering authorities treat Canadian adults like
morons, assuming they will not keep a distance from each other. These and a
host of other abuses and illogical restrictions have motivated thousands of
Canadians to protest. People are concerned about the arbitrary restrictions,
the crashing of the economy, the federal gun grab, and the possibility of
forced vaccination.
There have been
weekly protests in Vancouver and Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Hamilton,
and more recently in Kelowna. This list is only partial. The first Toronto
protest, April 25, which drew 50 people provoked an angry Premier Ford to
denounce the protesters, whom he hadn’t met, as “a bunch of yahoos” who were “reckless”.
His reaction is typical of many politicians who believe they should command rather
than listen respectfully to the views of those who elected them. Four weeks
later, the weekly Saturday protest had grown to 400 people. There were almost as many Red Ensign flags fluttering in the warm Spring sunshine as Pearson pennants. People shared many earned concerns — the loss of free speech, Trudau’s opportunistic gun grab, the fear of forced vaccination, and the general joyless herding of the population in a no service, neo-Soviet totalitarianism. Their signs help tell the story.
The Vancouver
“No more lockdown” protests began two weeks earlier than Toronto.
They started with 25 and by May 17, had swelled to 325. B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix dismissed the protesters as people
with “marginal views. Don’t allow people who are attempting to
promote themselves by using the suffering of others to distract us. Don’t look
at them, but focus on what we need to do together.” (CTV,
April 26, 2020) A fellow NDPer Spencer
Chandra Herbert went further and seemed to want the police to charge or
ticket the protesters. Herbert, who is an outspoken lobbyist for homosexual
rights, is himself homosexual and “married” to one Romi Chandra, stated: “”I’ve
alerted the Ministry of Public Safety
for their information, and reached out to the Vancouver police who have the
responsibility for enforcing orders. I don’t want our community’s safety
threatened by selfish people who won’t do their part to stop COVID-19.”
In Kelowna, led by
longtime freedom activist David Lindsay
under the banner of CLEAR (Common Law
and Education Rights), “end the lockdown” protesters from
throughout the Okanagan Valley rallied in Stuart Park, opposite City Hall, on
May 7. Their numbers had doubled to 40 on May 16 and they plan to be in Stuart
Park every Saturday at noon until the lockdown ends, as will the Vancouver and
Toronto rallies.
