Toronto End the Lockdown leader, Chris Sky, now a political exile from COVID repression in Canada, warns of the coming tripledemic , an excuse for remasking. He warns of the global digital ID which will allow government to monitor and control you. “I’m never wearing a mask again!”
“People are not complying!” Resistance is NOT futile.
He’s the author of “Just Say Now” a book available for $25.00 from C.A.F.E., P.O. Box 332 Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.
Yesterday was the 103rd annual Remembrance Day, honouring those who have risked their lives to fight for freedom in other countries. Many died, or were wounded, and scarred forever by their experiences. These were the soldiers on the front lines, away from their families, living in fear every moment, praying for an end to the wars, while their families kept the home-fires burning.
“
Today, we are facing a kind of war never imagined then, except in books like 1984. We are the ones who must fight, non-violently, with love in our hearts, using all our mental, spiritual, intellectual and emotional strength to survive and thrive and to hold accountable those responsible for our crisis of government overreach. Our rallies provide a sense of community, a source for exchanging information, with a commitment to “do something” to help others understand what’s going on, and how to protect themselves. Larger initiatives, like the planned National Citizens Inquiry, listed below, provide opportunities to participate in some small way to hold accountable those who are responsible for today’s atrocities against humankind. Please sign the petition and decide what other actions you might take to make this major inquiry a success. ——————————- o0o————————————-
Penticton4Freedom Sunday RallyThis Sunday, November 13th – from 1 to 3 p.m. Corner of Main and Warren, Penticton.Guest speaker – Lydia Kress – What’s going on at Pen High, and what we can do about it? – Shawn Brown – Challenging EI for justice for those who refused to knuckle under
Miss a week and you miss a lot! Fighting for freedom is more fun with friends. Bring a few. ——————————- o0o————————————-<< OTHER EVENTS OF INTEREST >>Weekly noon hour Tuesday “Protesting with Purpose” in front of Richard Cannings’ office at 301 Main Street in Penticton. Get updates there from Wayne and Derrick.——————————- o0o————————————-
Canada’s federal, provincial, and municipal governments’ responses to COVID-19 were of an unprecedented nature. The magnitude of these interventions demands a comprehensive, transparent, and objective inquiry into the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures imposed. National Citizen’s Inquiry Announcement by Preston Manning – VIDEONational Citizens’ Inquiry – Keep the Momentum Going – Take Action HEREPlease express support for a citizen-led, citizen-funded inquiry by signing the petition posted HERE——————————- o0o————————————-
Remember that Freedom Hugs are available at ALL our Penticton4Freedom events!
A quick reminder that the WorldWide Rally for Freedom is taking place this Saturday (Nov 19) at 12noon. There are two locations: see attached posters. Our team will have the table at the Queen’s Park location (come by and say “hi”!) but a few of us will be at the Christie Pits event as well.
We had a small but lively meeting the other night, more on that later. Stay tuned for a December event notice, probably something more casual like a lunch.
Still looking for a volunteer to help with finding venues and booking meetings. Thanks! Rachel Toronto Chapter Vaccine Choice Canada
Please note: Neither I, nor any representatives of VCC are permitted to give medical, nutritional, or legal advice. The responses provided herein are for information purposes only.
Central pillars of our liberal democracies are eroding. We are losing free speech and bodily autonomy. Group-think and cancel culture are rising while the electronic surveillance state controls much of life. As if these weren’t enough, those in positions of authority seem committed to undermining ready access to food, travel and human contact. Most believe we’re powerless. Why?
Many who fled oppressive regimes for the once appealing democratic West can answer: We forget history. We falsely believe we can defeat authoritarianism while maintaining creature comforts, illusions of safety and our societal status. We believe ‘going along’ will bridge an inconvenient season of crazed policy, when in reality we cling to twigs of reputation, ease and illusory security while facing a tsunami of totalitarian control that risks the destruction of our freedom.
There is only one way to arrest this trend. Men and women must courageously and publicly take unrelenting positions against it. We must refuse to assent to the lies dismantling our societies, tearing away our freedoms, and removing our power as free beings.
We are not powerless when standing together, aligning ourselves on the common, fortified ground of integrity, truth, courage and self-sacrifice.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, in a 1974 article Live Not by Lies, penned these words in a call to corporate courage: “We need not be the first to set out on this path, Ours is but to join! The more of us set out together, the thicker our ranks, the easier and shorter will this path be for us all! If we become thousands—they will not cope, they will be unable to touch us. If we will grow to tens of thousands—we will not recognize our country!”
#declareyourcourage
Declaration
I declare all that follows, calling out as a lie the societal claim that change is impossible. It begins with me:
I will not speak, sign, write, or repeat in any forum or on any platform, anything that is not, as far as I know, the truth;
I will, where opportunity presents, and in spite of the cost, speak out against lies;
I will stand alone if need be, knowing that freedom is “the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” (Pericles)
I will not repeat nor support radically progressive, popularized ideological mantras. I will walk out of state, corporate or privately enforced indoctrinations on the same;
I will not acquiesce to the state’s violation of my God-given freedoms of speech, worship, conscience and bodily autonomy;
I will persevere in the face of threats to livelihood, status or reputation, in spite of the pain or my own self-doubt;
I will, where opportunity presents, support with my words, actions and finances, those similarly convicted of this need for a relentless commitment to truth, freedom and conscience.
All this I undertake, knowing I may suffer loss of the fragile constructs of social status, comfort and ‘safety’. I am willing to do so, in exchange for the far superior and lasting bedrock of truth upon which our futures and freedom (and that of our children) must be grounded.
French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, awaiting a court hearing on 24th November to determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry.
Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.
British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.
Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.
The question that should immediately occur to any educated European is: why?
Why should our rulers be so afraid of what remains a small minority of scholars who – inspired by revisionist pioneers Robert Faurisson in France and Arthur Butz in the USA – have persisted in raising serious questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews, in unfeasible homicidal gas chambers, on the undocumented alleged orders of Adolf Hitler?
Any other area of history with such blatant evidential problems would have attracted dozens of academic sceptics. Yet with a handful of honourable exceptions, the academic world has not only been cowed into silence, but has queued up to accept lucrative commissions and tenured positions promoting the new religion of Holocaustianity.
Our rulers approach has been the well-tried one of ‘carrot and stick’.
The carrot is the promise of well-remunerated posts in universities and charities, combined with fat cheques from publishers, newspapers, television stations and movie studios.
The stick (increasingly used during the last quarter-century) has involved heavy fines and prison sentences. In Germany, the 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to another year in prison, and is expected to begin her incarceration any day now. Her equally courageous compatriot Horst Mahler (now 86) has at the last count spent about fifteen years in prison since his 70th birthday, again for the ‘crimes’ of publishing articles and books, and giving interviews about this forbidden area of 20th century history. And in the USA the exiled German chemist Germar Rudolf faces determined efforts to have him extradited to Germany, where he would certainly be handed a long jail sentence.
Vincent Reynouard consulting his lawyer during one of his many court appearances in France. In the background can be seen one of Vincent’s most loyal supporters, Jérôme Bourbon, the editor of long-established journal Rivarol.
So far the UK has no such specific law criminalising historical revisionism, and several British historians, including leftists and liberals such as Timothy Garton Ash, have commendably condemned all such laws.
In 2008 a London court rejected the German government’s request for the extradition of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben under a European Arrest Warrant. Will a similar situation protect Vincent Reynouard?
New extradition arrangements post-Brexit have only been in force since 11 pm on 31st December 2020, so while we can see the statutory position, we have little in the way of case law (on either side of the border).
I am not a lawyer, but I was closely involved in research work for the Töben case, and have had good reason more recently to refresh my memory and understanding of the legal position regarding EU citizens travelling or resident in the UK.
Traditionally the UK’s position on extradition (as was once common internationally) was based on two essential principles. One was the existence of an extradition treaty with the country concerned, which entailed mutual respect for legal systems. For example, the lack of such a treaty with Spain (due to political embarrassment over the presence of numerous anti-Franco exiles, including terrorists, in the UK) meant that Spain became notorious for decades as a refuge for British criminals – i.e. non-political criminals such as bank robbers.
Despite Brexit, French prosecutors seem able to demand extradition from the UK of a man who has committed no crime under UK law.
Once such a treaty was in place, the essential principle was ‘dual criminality’, i.e. that the offence of which the requested fugitive was charged should also be an offence in the country from which extradition was sought. Naturally the criminal laws involved would rarely be identical, and it was up to the courts to resolve whether ‘dual criminality’ applied.
In a case such as that of Vincent Reynouard, this would once have presented a problem for the authorities. It would have been necessary to prove not only that he had committed ‘Holocaust denial’ (not in itself of course an offence in the UK), but that he had done so in a manner which also contravened some UK law (such as the laws against “inciting racial hatred”).
As readers can easily imagine, the “dual criminality” requirement allowed legal loopholes to be exploited in any number of criminal cases, especially those which involved wealthy crooks, or IRA terrorists who had a well-funded support network, and whose extradition from European countries (or the USA) to the UK was occasionally blocked.
So even setting aside our enemies’ broader political agenda, there were (from the general public’s viewpoint) apparent practical advantages to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, which after long discussion replaced the traditional extradition laws, and took effect in the UK on 1st January 2004.
Under the EAW there was a fundamental assumption that all legal systems within the EU could trust each other to respect natural justice, etc.; and there was no need to establish “dual criminality”.
In place of the latter principle, the EAW established a list of “framework offences”. Once it could be shown that a fugitive was accused of anything that fell within these quite broadly defined “framework offences”, he would be extradited very swiftly in what amounted to a “rubber-stamp” procedure even though it formally took place in court. There was no provision in most cases for the courts to investigate the full circumstances of the alleged ‘crime’ before extradition under an EAW.
This is Baroness Scotland, the ‘British’ government minister who gave Parliament an assurance that the European Arrest Warrant would not be used as a back-door criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. If Vincent Reynouard is extradited, it will be clear evidence that she lied to Parliament.
One of the framework offences was “racism and xenophobia”. However, so far as ‘Holocaust denial’ was concerned, there remained a potential loophole.
This loophole only existed because of objections that were raised in the House of Lords during passage of the legislation that wrote the EAW system into UK law.
Under repeated cross-examination by peers, the Home Office minister in the Lords (Baroness Scotland) gave a specific assurance that the EAW would not amount to a back door criminalisation of Holocaust denial in the UK.
The position was to be as follows. If any element of the ‘offence’ of ‘Holocaust denial’ had taken place in the UK, it would be deemed to fall under UK law and therefore (unless it could be shown that it also involved other existing crimes under UK law) extradition would not take place.
A ‘Holocaust denier’ would only be extradited under a European Arrest Warrant if it could be shown by the requesting country’s authorities that the ‘crime’ had been committed purely and simply within the jurisdiction of the country concerned.
The specific example given to Parliament was of someone who had made a speech in Cologne market place denying the ‘Holocaust’, and had then escaped to the UK before being apprehended. In such a case (provided other boxes were ticked, such as the offence potentially attracting a prison sentence of more than 12 months) the requested person would be extradited.
However, if someone had produced a magazine, or a book, or a website, or an online video, etc., ‘denying the Holocaust’, then such a person would not be extradited. Even though part of the ‘offence’ might have been committed in France, Germany or wherever, part of it would also have been committed in the UK.
The minister’s precise words to Parliament included the following assurance: “Holocaust denial …is a very particular offence. We would say that those engaging in that endeavour in part in this country would not be capable of being extradited as the offence would in part have allegedly been committed in this country, and in this country it is not an offence. So we would not extradite those involved in it.”
Dr Fredrick Töben, whose London lawyers defeated an extradition attempt by German prosecutors in 2008.
Such was the difficulty for the German authorities in the Töben case. They issued a European Arrest Warrant, and Töben was arrested while merely passing through London’s Heathrow Airport on 1st October 2008. He was jailed pending extradition, which at first was expected to be a ‘rubber-stamp’ process.
However, on closer examination (once Töben was represented by extradition specialist Kevin Lowry-Mullins rather than by a duty solicitor) it was found that the German request was insufficiently detailed. The reason for such vagueness was obvious: the authorities both in Berlin and London were well aware that Töben’s alleged criminal conduct did not fall within the very limited definition of ‘Holocaust denial crimes’ for which people could be extradited from the UK. To do so would be a flagrant betrayal of pledges to Parliament during passage of the EAW into UK law.
Consequently, the legal difficulty (and political embarrassment) was colossal. After the Westminster magistrate ruled against extradition, the British and German authorities swiftly dropped their appeal, resulting in Töben’s release.
So the question in 2022 becomes whether the new arrangements that have replaced the EAW post-Brexit, in relation to extradition from or to the UK, are in any way similar in their application to Vincent’s case.
Vincent Reynouard with two of his children: his case is a vital test of whether the UK still retains any respect for traditional liberties.
These new laws were agreed as part of the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ between the UK and the EU which regulates the whole spectrum of such relations post-Brexit. It passed into UK law in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, which took effect at 11 pm on 31st December 2020.
Broadly speaking this replicates the EAW, in that it is intended to fast-track extradition (in each direction) between the UK and EU countries, and is similar to the existing arrangements that the EU has with Norway and Iceland.
Specifically, there are very limited grounds on which it will be possible to argue that Vincent should not be extradited, and there is a presumption that the whole procedure should be completed swiftly.
It is potentially important that the new law – unlike the EAW system – does not specifically state that the UK and EU nations have “mutual trust” and “mutual confidence” in one other’s legal systems.
Moreover it is stated in the new law that any extradition should be “proportionate” and in particular should avoid long periods of pre-trial detention.
One potential argument is that the French legal system is so heavily politicised in respect of thought-criminals (especially ‘Holocaust deniers’) that there are serious grounds for believing that Vincent Reynouard’s fundamental rights would be imperilled by extradition.
There will be extensive updates here at the Real History blog on the Vincent Reynouard case as it develops. And we shall very soon be reporting on a broader new initiative to advance revisionist scholarship with the aid of a new generation of European intellectual adventurers (to use Professor Robert Faurisson’s celebrated term). — Peter Rushton
The front page of Scotland’s oldest newspaper (now owned by Americans) led with the Reynouard story on Tuesday 15th November. Contrary to the headline, there is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.The leading French nationalist journal Rivarol also has Vincent Reynouard’s arrest as its front page lead story, though unlike the Glasgow Herald, Rivarol defends traditional European freedoms.
The arrest of French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard last Thursday – for a ‘crime’ which isn’t even an offence under UK law – was accomplished thanks to lobbying by a notorious political fixer, whom a former Prime Minister once described as a “boot boy” because of his strong-arm tactics.
Despite Mr Reynouard having broken no UK laws, a Zionist pressure group in London was able to work with the French authorities to put pressure on British police officers to waste time and money pursuing him. A central figure in persuading the UK police to collaborate in this disgraceful arrest and extradition process is Lord Austin.
Ian Austin – now Lord Austin of Dudley – was a Labour MP for fourteen years and previously an aide to Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown. In 2006 he was described by Tory leader David Cameron as one of “the Chancellor’s boot boys”, after persistently loutish behaviour in Parliament.
Ian Austin – the key lobbyist who facilitated Vincent Reynouard’s arrest – seen here at a march organised by Jewish lobby groups against his own party leadership. He was raised to the House of Lords by his nominal Tory opponents and now writes a column for a Tory newspaper.
And in March 2022 Austin was forced to apologise to Laura Murray, an ex-aide to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, after he had accused her of being an “anti-Jewish racist” and part of Corbyn’s “anti-semitic” leadership team. By this point Austin had betrayed his own party and had been ennobled as ‘Lord Austin of Dudley’ by Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson. His libellous attack on Ms Murray came in an article for a Tory newspaper, the Daily Telegraph: Austin and the Telegraph had to pay Ms Murray £40,000 in damages and issue an unreserved apology.
Is this really the sort of man on whose word police officers should be persuaded to spend UK taxpayers’ money and on whose advice the British authorities should be persuaded to abandon our traditional freedoms?
For years, both as an MP and in the House of Lords, Austin has prioritised Zionist campaigns including ‘Holocaust’ remembrance. The parliamentary register shows repeated cash donations to Austin (even looking solely, for example, at the period 2015-2019) from two well-known Zionist businessmen, Sir David Garrard and Sir Trevor Chinn. Garrard is a London property developer who in 2005 gave a secret loan of £2.3 million to the Labour Party (despite having previously backed the rival Conservative Party): by a strange coincidence Labour nominated him for a peerage at the same time as this secret ‘loan’, but he withdrew his nomination when a ‘cash for honours’ scandal hit the headlines. Garrard chose not to demand repayment until the party elected an anti-Zionist leader ten years later. In 2019 he gave £1.5 million to the so-called ‘Independent Group’, a pro-Zionist faction of MPs who set out to undermine Corbyn’s leadership.
Sir David Garrard, Zionist tycoon and regular cash donor to Vincent Reynouard’s accuser Lord Austin
For several years Garrard was a trustee and patron of the Philip Green Memorial Trust, a charity set up by Cyril Paskin, veteran leader of the violent ‘anti-fascist’ 62 Group. Garrard was involved in an unsavoury court case in 2014 when serious allegations of financial misconduct were levelled by his own son-in-law. Garrard’s donations to Austin included: £10,900 in 2016; £10,000 in 2017; and £10,000 in 2019.
Sir Trevor Chinn is also a regular donor to pro-Zionist politicians and sits on the board of several Zionist lobby groups. His donations to Austin included: £7,500 in 2015; £5,000 in 2017; and £5,000 in 2019.
In addition to these gifts from Garrard and Chinn, the register shows many payments from Zionist organisations, ‘Holocaust’ remembrance groups, and even Israeli government entities who have regularly flown Austin around the globe, all expenses paid.
In 2019 the then Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May appointed him as Trade Envoy to Israel, a post he has continued to hold under Mrs May’s three successors.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that such a committed Zionist fanatic spends his time trying to arrange the arrest of a man who has broken no UK laws. But we really ought to be surprised that the police in England and Scotland have taken any notice of self-interested, lavishly-funded lobby groups and their parliamentary allies. — Peter Rushton
Most of you will know me. For those who don’t, I am Peter Rushton, assistant editor of the magazine Heritage and Destiny and author of the new Real History blog at the link below. I have been involved on the UK political scene for more than thirty years (as a writer, speaker, election agent and many other capacities) and my main focus now, as will be seen with the ongoing development of the blog, is to take historical revisionism into new areas and levels, with the aid of newly released and newly discovered documentary evidence.
My recent articles below refer to the case of Vincent Reynouard, the great revisionist scholar who was arrested in Scotland last Thursday and is now imprisoned awaiting extradition. I have learned that his present address for correspondence is:
Mr. Vincent REYNOUARDPrisoner Number 160071 HMP Edinburgh Scottish Prison Service 33 Stenhouse Road EH11 3LNEDINBURGHScotland United Kingdom
Please bear in mind that Vincent faces an extradition hearing on 24th November. It is entirely possible that the whole process will be expedited, so especially if you are writing from outside the United Kingdom, this might mean that he has already left the UK by the time your letter arrives. Please also bear in mind the following excerpt from regulations regarding letters to UK prisoners
You can write to an individual in custody as often as you like and there is not usually any restriction on the number of letters they can receive. When you write, remember to put the person’s prison number and name on the letter. Your family member/friend can write back to you and will be allowed to send one free letter each week. If they want to write more often they can, but will have to pay for the postage themselves.
From 13 December 2021, new legislation will come into force which may impact on correspondence you are sending to your loved one. The legislation provides Prison Officers and employees with powers to photocopy the correspondence. The individual in custody can be provided with the photocopy and the original correspondence retained and either returned to them on release or destroyed with their consent. In regards to confidentiality, the Prison Rules and Directions remain unchanged. Prison Officers and staff are not routinely able to read correspondence.
Photographs and cards are considered as general correspondence. Governor’s will have discretion to decide how these should be managed locally. Consideration should be given in the first instance to testing all cards and photographs using the Rapiscan Itemiser drug detection machine and issuing the original copies.
Further updates on Vincent’s case will be posted to the Real History blog. For those of you have Twitter accounts, the issue is being quite widely discussed there and I have been posting regularly in reply to Scottish journalists and others. The whole matter is potentially giving revisionism very wide publicity in the UK. Best wishes
David Icke has been banned from all 26 Schengen countries in Europe by the Dutch government. Icke was to participate in a peace demonstration in Amsterdam. The Jewish organization CIDI (Centre of Information and Documentation Israel) objected to the arrival of David Icke and requested the mayor of Amsterdam to prevent him from speaking during this demonstration. The mayor hopped to it and soon Icke was banned. Once again we see the inordinate and anti-free speech power of some Jewish organizations, just as Kanye West noted.
WE The signatories of this petition and concerned citizens of Europe OBSERVATION that David Icke is unlawfully denied entry to 26 Schengen countries for two years, and that as a result, among other things. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution are being violated [2]. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND SHOWN THAT David Icke is not a Holocaust denier [3] David Icke is not an anti-Semite [3] David Icke has no criminal record.
David Icke was invited at the end of October 2022 to speak at a peace demonstration in the Netherlands on November 6, 2022.
The Jewish organization CIDI (Centre of Information and Documentation Israel) objected to the arrival of David Icke and requested the mayor of Amsterdam to prevent him from speaking during this demonstration [4].
mayor of Amsterdam subsequently requested the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) to investigate whether it would be possible to prohibit David Icke from entering Dutch territory [5]. After appeals from a number of members of the House of Representatives, the State Secretary for Justice and Security decides on Thursday 4 November, late in the afternoon, to deny David Icke access to the Netherlands and 26 Schengen countries for a period of two years [6].
Statements by the government, politicians, the CIDI and the media can be regarded as libel and slander towards David Icke [7]. INVITE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT To respect the fundamental freedoms of David Icke and to remove the alert from the Schengen Information System II [8].
CAFE Participates in Weekly Victoria Freedom Rally in Front of B.C. Legislature
CAFE Participates in Weekly Victoria Freedom Rally in Front of B.C. Legislature
“|Victoria is now my 18th city,” said CAFE Director Paul Fromm as he joined the weekly Saturday Freedom Rally in front of the B.C. Legislature. “This is the 18th city, in two provinces, where I’ve joined End the Lockdown/freedom rallies since April, 200,” he added. Several CAFE associates regularly attend the Victoria rallies.
“It is such a joyous atmosphere. People hug old friends and complete strangers,” Mr. Fromm added. “And not a mask to be seen anywhere!”
Two carloads of people came down from Nanaimo. A Chinese man who is a strong supporter of Taiwan comes over every weekend form Vancouver. One man handed out peanut butter and jam sandwiches to anyone who wanted one.
Members of the same group picket the offices of CHEK, the local Fake News television channel, every Wednesday.
If a “round up” can be defined as corralling a collection of animals into enclosures for a particular purpose then Canadians can easily imagine themselves as the new livestock. It’s an easy analogy to make given the past almost-three-years of incessant whining by authorities of all stripes to “follow the science” as they concurrently prod us away from each other and into enclosures dispensing one-size-fits-all vaccination programs. It’s this or suffer the consequences of your, supposedly, uncoerced choices and lose your job, your ability to travel or even your kids as you obstinately put the public good and the public health at risk. To make matters worse, those livestock that have the temerity to wander off away from the cattle drive are left defenseless as attempts to justify their well-considered, but contrary, ways are met with obfuscation and outright ad hominem attack by controlling authorities and agencies alike. These strays are cancelled and belittled.
Some “strays” in present-day Canada refuse to be corralled
The fact that the roundup has been continuing apace for some time now is evidenced by C3RF’s own “One Stop Tyrant Shop”. This chronicling of overreaching dictates, edicts and mandates that work to carve out traditional, freedom-minded citizens from the herd of their more pliant counterparts is compiled from C3RF “Update” observations extending from 2018 to the present day. The current version, version 15, is a stunning 42 pages long and is growing as we speak. Indeed, the latest additions to this ever-expanding compilation of draconian measures and insults aimed at everyday Canadians include:
a recognition of the fact that, according to both Saskatchewan and Alberta officials, the Emergencies Act was invoked illegally as the declaration lacked the required consultations with provincial authorities.
For the strays that refuse to be rounded by self-declared wranglers for whatever reason, the size and accelerating growth of the “One Stop Tyrant Shop” comes as no surprise. They believe what their own eyes see and have long recognized the current Canadian regime to be unconstrained by any check or balance. They see their executive, legislative and judicial bodies arrayed against them to pursue political power over and above any need to enable a “representative democracy”. They see a juggernaut that has lost all respect for the individual Charter rights of a formerly free people. For those moving along in the midst of the cattle drive, the mere size of the “Shop” comes as a shock to the system as, like a frog in pot of gradually heated water, they are beginning to see bubbles roiling around them.
Is it too late for the Canadian frog in a pot?
Canadian authorities have tried to play the long game by gradually cranking up the heat on Canadian civil liberties. In doing so, they likely perceived it was the best way to achieve the desired outcome of moving the country away from the individual liberties, meritocracy and free markets characteristic of a Western liberal democracy towards one that is centrally controlled by an “expert” class. This process has been facilitated by the creation of a supporting superstructure of legislation girded by judicial pronouncements that act to curtail any opposition, let alone debate. And so we see Bills C-11, C-18 and C-261 promulgated to curtail and shape what you can say in the public square even as the authors of such legislation give themselves the arbitrary power to define just what is acceptable when it comes to thinking and communicating. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the same NDP-sponsored government is floating a new law by way of Bill C-23 that would see climate cops given the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures in the name of protecting the environment. Is it all becoming just a little too obvious? Even to those in the midst of the cattle drive?
Is Canada’s descent into despotism getting just too obvious?
The rising
The rising sense that all is not going in accordance with “rule of law” principles that purport to dispense justice equally is being fuelled by a consistent barrage of biased and divisive actions foisted upon the public, and individual citizens, by the powers-that-be. The sheer number of these edicts, mandates and decrees, many of which escape any legislative process as noted in the “One Stop Tyrant Shop”, prompts the question: is it all about rewarding friends and punishing enemies? What to think when:
Tamara Lich is shackled and denied bail for “mischief” charges related to the Freedom Convoy 2022 protests while the return from Syria of alleged ISIS terrorists is celebrated by Canadian media and public safety officials. Tamara is chopped liver while the latter have Charter rights and must be removed from “sub-human conditions” in Syria;
The Canadian legal and political systems move heaven and earth to patriate a self-confessed terrorist from American POW detention, and then award him $10.5 million in the name of Charter rights, even as these same systems can only muster efforts “at the margins” when it comes to judicially reviewing the constitutionality of pandemic measures.
It would seem that Canadian governance systems are operating on a divide and conquer basis to favour certain voting blocs while intimidating others into submission. This might be a good way to secure power and control over the short term but, as more and more Canadians become aware of the discriminatory measures at play, a backlash looms. How long will Canadians stand by and allow Section 1 of their Charter to be ignored? The section that demands limitations on their fundamental rights be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Shackles for Tamara, dollars for the more-favoured when it comes to Charter rights?
The fact that some Canadians have come to see the writing on the wall when it comes to the evaporation of their civil liberties is now playing out as an embarrassing exodus. C3RF stalwart, Debbie, has chosen to rise up and vote with her feet by packing up her Canadian possessions, selling her house and hitting the road for Mexico. She now reports that she is at a U.S./ Mexican border town where other Canadians are amassing and coordinating a united crossing. Other Canadians are looking closer to home for relief from government and “expert” overreach and moving to provinces that are more amenable to protecting their individual rights and freedoms. Top of the list is Alberta under its new Premier, Danielle Smith. She has promised to push back against such unsupported tyranny and has already apologized to the unvaccinated for the discriminations they have suffered in her province until now. All this in conjunction with nurses moving en mass to free regimes, such as Florida, to get away from a Covid-only medical system that is resulting in “negative outcomes” for patients. Should it be a surprise when good people move away from oppressive jurisdictions to better their lives? Wasn’t that once the calling card for those seeking to land on the shores of a “strong and free” Canada?
Canadians surging to Alberta for a better chance of securing their civil liberties?
Not all Canadians are voting with their feet though. Some, like Greg Hill, have accepted the gauntlet thrown down by bullying governments and “cancel culture” to declare “fight’s on”. Greg lost his job as a Canadian airliner pilot due to vaccine mandates and is now a Director at the “Free to Fly Canada” organization. Free to Fly has expanded rapidly to comprise more than 2000 aviation professionals and 40,000 passengers all dedicated to retrieving lost mobility rights guaranteed under the Charter. They note that such restrictions may have been “suspended” but that they stand to be re-initiated in line with predictions from our own Prime minister. As part of his in-place fight, Greg has penned a “Declaration for the Promotion of Truth and Individual Rights and Freedoms”. This avowal proposes that Canadians of all stripes commit to legal, civil disobedience measures to resist the onset of tyranny in Canada.
Greg Hill, Director at Free to Fly Canada declares, “fight’s on”
The reckoning
Try as it might, the efforts of governments, courts, the media and “cancel culture” to obscure and justify the dissolution of individual rights and freedoms in Canada, both through fluffed up emergencies and legislation, cannot escape eventual judgement by the public-writ-large. This will be a certainty as the alternate outcome, in the form of a deep dive into the loss of all such rights, is just too depressing to even consider. The process brought to bear will need to be independent in nature given the enormity and power of the agencies and authorities, both public and private, that have been involved in the lifting and restricting of civil liberties over the course of the Wuhan virus pandemic. As it stands now, the failure to enact such a review and move on its recommendations ensures the same will happen over and over again until the very nature of Canadian society is irrevocably impacted to leave a hellscape for our progeny.
Does a hellscape await a Canada disinterested in its descent into despotism?
Another C3RF stalwart, Barry, has joined the conversation on the matter of a Canadian drift into a dystopic future by noting that it is being promulgated by an “overbearing central government devoid of principle or restraint intent on controlling our behavior and thoughts, even on-line”. Certainly, if we are to shut down such overreach now and into the future we will not only have to take Greg Hill’s Declaration to heart but go beyond such civil disobedience measures to make some concurrent structural changes. We have to realize that we got to where we are now, a country operating at odds with the principles that so many have fought and died for before us, through a dearth of checks and balances required to slow down, let alone halt, such illiberal excursions. Barry suggests that the problem lies in the fact that cultural and societal changes have taken us to a place where we have outgrown our British-style parliamentary system.
Has Canada outgrown its British-style parliamentary system?
As Barry also notes, “Canada’s British style parliamentary system only works so long as the central government acts with reasonable prudence and restraint”. Unfortunately, and in a day and age that lacks the servant-leaders required to propel such an honourable enterprise forward, we are left with a governance system that affords far too much power to a select few. We see this full force in the Canadian parliamentary system where the Prime Minister has the power to handpick his or her executive in the form of a Governor General and Cabinet and then go on to appoint, through a proxy Governor General, Senators and Supreme and Federal Court judges. In the hands of an individual driven by modern-day ideologies that lionize “the end justifies the means”, the nation can easily find itself being held hostage by a “kid in a candy store”. Is it any wonder that Canadians see their liberties being zapped by the legal and political ministrations of a system crafted to suit a person at the center of the power structure – a person who suffers no constraints from a compliant media or political opposition in the form of NDP-type support. If any country needed structural change to its governance systems, perhaps in the form of recall and term limit legislation, it would be Canada. Either that or vote in a slate of servant-leaders capable of measuring up to the required standard of integrity and honour demanded by a parliamentary system?
Does Canada need more servant-leaders and less “end justifies the means”?
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!
