Warning to America:Trudeau’s Online Censorship Bill will,when it becomes law, stifle the growing chorus of anti-immigration voices just in a nick of time. Cheap labour employers, the home building industry and developers are depending on it. Billions of dollars are at stake. Let the Great Replacement proceed!
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a half-assed document that attempts to trade off free speech with other “rights”, as if free speech is not the one right upon which all other rights depend. In other words, Canadian constitutional law is based on a deeply flawed understanding of what makes a democracy work.
If the issue is “harmful” speech, then the good old fashioned Criminal Code of Canada sufficed. Speech that incites violence is prohibited. That litmus test was understood and accepted across the political spectrum.
But then, consensus was easily achieved in a largely homogeneous society, which bicultural Canada was. In the early 70s, well over 90 percent of us were of European origin.
Then along came mass immigration and a change in immigration selection criteria that ensured that nine in ten migrants would come from “non-traditional” (ie. non-European) sources. Over time, a nation of “Two Solitudes”, British and French, eventually became 200 solitudes (and more. Hello “vibrant diversity”, goodbye cohesion and comity.
Subsequently the game became “We have to keep the peace among rival ethnic and religious groups”. The remedy? Suppress free expression that would exacerbate tensions. As Lee Kwan Yu concluded, ethnic and religious harmony must come at the expense of free speech. When famed Canadian journalist George Jonas came to Canada as a Hungarian refugee in 1956, he reported that the most common phrase he heard in his adopted land was “Everyone is entitled to his opinion.” But 40 years later it was “I am offended”.
What does this have to do with sustainable population policy? Everything.
Seventy percent of Canada’s population growth is driven by immigration, and the percentage is growing. Now the three major parties favour an annual immigration intake of 500,000+ in pursuit of an insane population target of 100 million (up from our present 40 million!). Trudeau’s agenda of stringent internet censorship and extreme punishment for thought crimes makes any challenge to this immigration policy risky to say the least. Especially when Canada’s version of the SPLC, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, is looking for a xenophobe / Islamophobe / transphobe under every bed. In addition to the criminal charges that Trudeau’s proposed changes would involve, human rights charges under the various civil provincial codes could be applied.
It should be remembered that under the federal and provincial Human Rights code, the legal costs incurred by a complainant are picked up by taxpayers, however frivolous or absurd the change. Meanwhile, typically the defendant has to mortgage his house to mount a defence. In other words, a complainant has no incentive not to file a complaint and financially ruin you. How’s that for fair play?
What transpires over the next year or half a year is critical to the country’s future. At long last there are mainstream voices calling for a halt to over-immigration madness. Trudeau and his puppeteers on Bay Street understand that these voices must be stifled NOW. The backlash against hyper-immigration proposals must be nipped in the bud. Billions of dollars are at stake. Cheap labour employers, developers, the homebuilding industry and the major banks are counting on the windfall that will fall into their laps as runaway population growth proceeds.
It’s been a week of startling admissions and deflections from the Liberal camp. Here’s what you need to know.
Guilbeault Embraces “Proud Socialist” Tag Amid Carbon Tax Defense: Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has declared himself a “proud socialist” while fervently upholding the Liberal carbon tax. This confession in Parliament has stirred the political pot, aligning him closely with climate change measures that continue to polarize the nation. Guilbeault’s Socialist Reveal:Read the Full Article Here Liberal Safe Supply Program Under Fire as Opioid Deaths Remain High: In an unsettling turn, the Liberal “safe supply” initiative for curbing opioid fatalities is under fire. With deaths still on the rise, the Liberals, led by Minister Ya’ara Saks, now point to socio-economic woes and illegal drugs, shifting away from pandemic-related explanations.
UCP Minister Rebukes Party’s DEI Stance: In a defiant departure from her party’s recent direction, Advanced Education Minister Rajan Sawhney has starkly dismissed the democratic will of UCP members. Sawhney has provocatively claimed that party members — who have voted to abolish DEI bureaucracies in universities — are out of step with Albertan values and in need of DEI indoctrination.
This bold assertion flies in the face of the UCP’s landmark AGM decision to rid post-secondary institutions of DEI offices, which many Conservatives see as bastions of divisive, ideological agendas. Discover More on Sawhney’s Controversial CommentsKeep fighting for what is right, Jorgen Soby Operations Manager TheCounterSignal.com
Jordan Peterson: Why I am no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto: The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business
[How anti-White, anti-heterosexual “diversity” fanaticism is destroying our universities, turning them into indoctrination centres and swamps of mediocrity. A sad comment on the state of freedom on campus. — Paul Fromm] Author of the article: Jordan Peterson, Special to National Post Jan 19, 2022 • 1 day ago • 10 minute read • 1955 Comments
Jordan Peterson speaks at ICC Sydney Theatre on February 26, 2019 in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Don Arnold/WireImage)
I recently resigned from my position as full tenured professor at the University of Toronto. I am now professor emeritus, and before I turned sixty. Emeritus is generally a designation reserved for superannuated faculty, albeit those who had served their term with some distinction. I had envisioned teaching and researching at the U of T, full time, until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office. I loved my job. And my students, undergraduates and graduates alike, were positively predisposed toward me. But that career path was not meant to be. There were many reasons, including the fact that I can now teach many more people and with less interference online. But here’s a few more:
First, my qualified and supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students (and I’ve had many others, by the way) face a negligible chance of being offered university research positions, despite stellar scientific dossiers. This is partly because of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity mandates (my preferred acronym: DIE). These have been imposed universally in academia, despite the fact that university hiring committees had already done everything reasonable for all the years of my career, and then some, to ensure that no qualified “minority” candidates were ever overlooked. My students are also partly unacceptable precisely because they are my students. I am academic persona non grata, because of my unacceptable philosophical positions. And this isn’t just some inconvenience. These facts rendered my job morally untenable. How can I accept prospective researchers and train them in good conscience knowing their employment prospects to be minimal?
Second reason: This is one of many issues of appalling ideology currently demolishing the universities and, downstream, the general culture. Not least because there simply is not enough qualified BIPOC people in the pipeline to meet diversity targets quickly enough (BIPOC: black, indigenous and people of colour, for those of you not in the knowing woke). This has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades. This means we’re out to produce a generation of researchers utterly unqualified for the job. And we’ve seen what that means already in the horrible grievance studies “disciplines.” That, combined with the death of objective testing, has compromised the universities so badly that it can hardly be overstated. And what happens in the universities eventually colours everything. As we have discovered.
All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant. They all lie (excepting the minority of true believers) and they teach their students to do the same. And they do it constantly, with various rationalizations and justifications, further corrupting what is already a stunningly corrupt enterprise. Some of my colleagues even allow themselves to undergo so-called anti-bias training, conducted by supremely unqualified Human Resources personnel, lecturing inanely and blithely and in an accusatory manner about theoretically all-pervasive racist/sexist/heterosexist attitudes. Such training is now often a precondition to occupy a faculty position on a hiring committee.
Need I point out that implicit attitudes cannot — by the definitions generated by those who have made them a central point of our culture — be transformed by short-term explicit training? Assuming that those biases exist in the manner claimed, and that is a very weak claim, and I’m speaking scientifically here. The Implicit Association test — the much-vaunted IAT, which purports to objectively diagnose implicit bias (that’s automatic racism and the like) is by no means powerful enough — valid and reliable enough — to do what it purports to do. Two of the original designers of that test, Anthony Greenwald and Brian Nosek, have said as much, publicly. The third, Professor Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard, remains recalcitrant. Much of this can be attributed to her overtly leftist political agenda, as well as to her embeddedness within a sub-discipline of psychology, social psychology, so corrupt that it denied the existence of left-wing authoritarianism for six decades after World War II. The same social psychologists, broadly speaking, also casually regard conservatism (in the guise of “system justification”) as a form of psychopathology.
Banaji’s continued countenancing of the misuse of her research instrument, combined with the status of her position at Harvard, is a prime reason we still suffer under the DIE yoke, with its baleful effect on what was once the closest we had ever come to truly meritorious selection. There are good reasons to suppose that DIE-motivated eradication of objective testing, such as the GRE for graduate school admission, will have deleterious effects on the ability of students so selected to master such topics as the statistics all social sciences (and medicine, for that matter) rely upon completely for their validity.
Furthermore, the accrediting boards for graduate clinical psychology training programs in Canada are now planning to refuse to accredit university clinical programs unless they have a “social justice” orientation. That, combined with some recent legislative changes in Canada, claiming to outlaw so-called “conversion therapy” (but really making it exceedingly risky for clinicians to do anything ever but agree always and about everything with their clients) have likely doomed the practice of clinical psychology, which always depended entirely on trust and privacy. Similar moves are afoot in other professional disciplines, such as medicine and law. And if you don’t think that psychologists, lawyers and other professionals are anything but terrified of their now woke governing professional colleges, much to everyone’s extreme detriment, you simply don’t understand how far this has all gone.
Just exactly what am I supposed to do when I meet a graduate student or young professor, hired on DIE grounds? Manifest instant skepticism regarding their professional ability? What a slap in the face to a truly meritorious young outsider. And perhaps that’s the point. The DIE ideology is not friend to peace and tolerance. It is absolutely and completely the enemy of competence and justice.
And for those of you who think that I am overstating the case, or that this is something limited in some trivial sense to the universities, consider some other examples: This report from Hollywood, cliched hotbed of “liberal” sentiment, for example, indicates just how far this has gone. In 2020, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the Oscar people) embarked on a five-year plan (does that ring any historical bells?) “to diversify our organization and expand our definition of the best,” They did so in an attempt which included developing “new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars,” to, hypothetically, “better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience.” What fruit has this initiative, offspring of the DIE ideology, borne? According to a recent article, penned by Peter Kiefer and Peter Savodnik, but posted on former NY Times’ journalist Bari Weiss’s Common Sense website (and Weiss left the Times, because of the intrusion of radical left ideology into that newspaper, just as Tara Henley did recently, vis a vis the CBC): “We spoke to more than 25 writers, directors, and producers — all of whom identify as liberal, and all of whom described a pervasive fear of running afoul of the new dogma. … How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. … Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?”
And this is everywhere — and if you don’t see it, your head is either in the sand or shoved somewhere far more unmentionable. CBS, for example, has literally mandated that every writers’ room be at least 40 per cent BIPOC in 2021 (50 per cent in 2022).
We are now at the point where race, ethnicity, “gender,” or sexual preference is first, accepted as the fundamental characteristic defining each person (just as the radical leftists were hoping) and second, is now treated as the most important qualification for study, research and employment.
Need I point out that this is insane ? Even the benighted New York Times has its doubts. A headline from August 11, 2021: Are Workplace Diversity Programs Doing More Harm than Good? In a word, yes. How can accusing your employees of racism etc. sufficient to require re-training (particularly in relationship to those who are working in good faith to overcome whatever bias they might still, in these modern, liberal times, manifest) be anything other than insulting, annoying, invasive, high-handed, moralizing, inappropriate, ill-considered, counterproductive, and otherwise unjustifiable?
And if you think DIE is bad, wait until you get a load of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores . Purporting to assess corporate moral responsibility, these scores, which can dramatically affect an enterprise’s financial viability, are nothing less than the equivalent of China’s damnable social credit system, applied to the entrepreneurial and financial world. CEOs: what in the world is wrong with you? Can’t you see that the ideologues who push such appalling nonsense are driven by an agenda that is not only absolutely antithetical to your free-market enterprise, as such, but precisely targeted at the freedoms that made your success possible? Can’t you see that by going along, sheep-like (just as the professors are doing; just as the artists and writers are doing) that you are generating a veritable fifth column within your businesses? Are you really so blind, cowed and cowardly? With all your so-called privilege?
And it’s not just the universities. And the professional colleges. And Hollywood. And the corporate world. Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity — that radical leftist Trinity — is destroying us. Wondering about the divisiveness that is currently besetting us? Look no farther than DIE. Wondering — more specifically — about the attractiveness of Trump? Look no farther than DIE. When does the left go too far? When they worship at the altar of DIE, and insist that the rest of us, who mostly want to be left alone, do so as well. Enough already. Enough. Enough.
Finally, do you know that Vladimir Putin himself is capitalizing on this woke madness? Anna Mahjar-Barducci at MEMRI.org covered his recent speech. I quote from the article’s translation: “The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags, as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs, and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion, and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones — all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.
“This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices — which we, fortunately, have left, I hope — in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past — such as Shakespeare — are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood, memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what color or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.”
This, from the head of the former totalitarian enterprise, against whom we fought a five decades’ long Cold War, risking the entire planet (in a very real manner). This, from the head of a country riven in a literally genocidal manner by ideas that Putin himself attributes to the progressives in the West, to the generally accepting audience of his once-burned (once (!)) twice-shy listeners.
And all of you going along with the DIE activists, whatever your reasons: this is on you. Professors. Cowering cravenly in pretence and silence. Teaching your students to dissimulate and lie. To get along. As the walls crumble. For shame. CEOs: signalling a virtue you don’t possess and shouldn’t want to please a minority who literally live their lives by displeasure. You’re evil capitalists, after all, and should be proud of it. At the moment, I can’t tell if you’re more reprehensibly timid even than the professors. Why the hell don’t you banish the human resource DIE upstarts back to the more-appropriately-named Personnel departments, stop them from interfering with the psyches of you and your employees, and be done with it? Musicians, artists, writers: stop bending your sacred and meritorious art to the demands of the propagandists before you fatally betray the spirit of your own intuition. Stop censoring your thought. Stop saying you will hire for your orchestral and theatrical productions for any reason other than talent and excellence. That’s all you have. That’s all any of us have.
He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. And the wind is rising.
Last year, an op-ed appeared in the Vancouver Sun titled “Ethnic diversity harms a country’s social trust, economic well-being, argues professor.”
The author of the piece, Mount Royal University geography instructor Mark Hecht, reviewed current research on the issue of ethnic diversity and social trust, and posited that immigration policy should be informed by norms of cultural compatibility and cohesion.
You probably never got the chance to read the original article – it was only live for a matter of hours, after all.
Activists and journalists immediately took to social media to accuse Hecht, the Vancouver Sun, and Postmedia (the Sun’s parent company) of bigotry, hate and white supremacy. The editor-in-chief of the Vancouver Sun apologized for running Hecht’s article, and the article was quickly pulled from their website.
Most of the criticism directed toward the op-ed was filled with name-calling and hyperbolic accusations, while few critics refuted Hecht’s claims, which he himself admitted were controversial.
Mount Royal University publicly defended Hecht’s freedom of expression, but quietly cancelled the “Sustainable Europe” field school he was set to teach the following semester.
Hecht then moved to Victoria, BC, and in February 2020 he applied to join the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Naval Reserves.
“I liked the idea of serving my country, and the camaraderie of the armed forces,” Hecht told True North. “I’ve also always been attracted to water and ships, which is why I applied to the Navy.”
Over the next few months, Hecht completed “four-fifths” of the recruitment process: he met with a recruiter, passed his aptitude and physical fitness tests and completed his medical examination. The last task on Hecht’s checklist was a written exam specific to the Public Affairs Officer position, which he was encouraged to pursue by a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recruiter.
But in late October, Hecht received a letter in the mail that told him, “at this time, your application to the Naval Reserves will be ceased. In light of an article that you published in 2019, it was deemed that the views you expressed do not reflect the Canadian Armed Forces policy on Discrimination, Harassment, and Professional Conduct.”
The letter went on to say that the CAF forbids verbal and written statements that “promote discrimination or harassment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).”
The letter Mark Hecht received from Commander Cameron Miller dated October 20, 2020.
“Nothing I said in the op-ed goes against the Canadian Human Rights Act,” Hecht counters. He points out that much of the article was a rehashing of existing social science research and data.
Hecht was “quite looking forward” to working with the Naval Reserves: “I was getting excited about it…I had invested a lot of time and energy, such as making sure I was fit as a 50-year old, because you’re going up against 18-year olds.”
“I was let down.”
True North reached out to the CAF and asked which line(s) from Hecht’s op-ed promote discrimination and harassment.
“The CAF is committed to increasing diversity and being an inclusive organization where diverse perspectives are welcomed and valued,” Captain Mathieu Dufour replied in a statement. “Mr. Hecht’s op-ed presents and supports an argument for a society with less ‘diversity, tolerance and inclusivity.’ By doing so, Mr. Hecht demonstrates opposition to the values and policies of the CAF.”
“The policies and direction that govern the conduct expectation of CAF members are incongruent with Mr. Hecht’s publically [sic] shared personal belief that diversity weakens Canada.”
Again, no one is refuting the facts and research findings that Hecht presents in his article: he discussed studies on Muslim integration in Denmark; a paper on diversity and economic growth written by a Harvard economist; and sociological research about self-segregation, ethnic enclaves and social trust.
Apparently, discussing this research in the public realm and challenging the de facto state religion of diversity and inclusion renders you unemployable in Canada.
Hecht is now seeking legal representation to take the CAF to court.
“There seems to be a real issue with freedom of opinion,” says Hecht.
“A lot of people are afraid to speak their minds these days. It’s a threat to our democracy.”
A George Mason University professor recently slammed Amrican universities for wasting students’ tuition on “diversity people.”
The
professor was referring to the seemingly endless need colleges claim
for adding countless “diversity and inclusion” staff and offices, which
he says rack up insane costs for universities.
An
economics professor at George Mason University is speaking out about
the “racket” that he says is college, and blaming it on the “diversity
people” who he says have flooded the university system with unnecessary
and perpetually increasing expenses tied to a seemingly endless need for
more and more diversity initiatives and faculty.
In his op-ed for The National Interest,
George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams explains that
institutions of higher education have started budgeting for “diversity
and equity personnel” to accommodate the modern-day college student. The
idea, Williams says, is to protect “vulnerable” groups of students from
“hate speech” and “microaggressions,” noting that they have even gone
as far as creating speech codes and bias-response teams to investigate
complaints. “‘Diversity’ is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree” Tweet This
But
Williams also takes issue with the fact that it doesn’t stop there. As
each of these programs is created, colleges and universities find a
“need” for more programs and faculty and therefore more money to fund
these initiatives.
Diversity programs and staff come at a high price. Williams cites a study by a group called “Minding the Campus,”
which found that Penn State University’s Office of the Vice Provost for
Educational Equity employs a total of 66 individual staff members. “The
University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93
full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts,
deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive
assistants, administrative assistants, analysts, and coordinators.
Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19
diversity people,” writes Williams.
According to Williams, the
salaries of the staff match the scale of these new programs, with top
diversity staff earning six-figure salaries. This is especially true
with schools like the University of Michigan where a quarter of their
diversity officers make more than $100,000 annually.
Williams cites an article by “diversity” skeptic and lawyer Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor at Law and Liberty, in which he discusses “the campus Diversity Swarm.”
The radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate conservative students on college campuses. You can help expose them.Find out more »
Williams claims that “diversity people” have created an entire
subsect of academia, having “developed their own professional
organization, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher
Education,” with annual conferences during which they develop “standards
for professional practice and a political agenda. He also points to the
fact that they have created their own academic journal, published by
the American Psychological Association.
In
the article, Pulliam describes “Diversity and inclusion” as “the latest
obsession in higher education, and elite schools compete with one
another to see who can field the largest and best-paid team of diversity
bureaucrats (diversocrats).”
“It’s an article of faith that
‘diversity’ originally a euphemism for affirmative action, somehow
enhances the educational environment, but data supporting the mismatch theory—which
holds that affirmative action hurts minority students by placing them
in academic programs for which they are unqualified—refute this claim,”
writes Pulliam.
Williams sees this as a vicious cycle, saying
“‘Diversity’ is the highest goal of students and professors who openly
detest those with whom they disagree. These people support the very
antithesis of higher education with their withering attacks on free
speech.”
Follow the author of this article on Twiter:@_EverettKatie
Justin’s Virtue-Signalling is Actually Vice-Signalling
So it appears there are things happening in the world other than Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un calling each other names and threatening to blow each other up. The American news has been dominated this week by a bizarre religious controversy that is dividing their country over whether it is ritually correct for people to kneel or stand while their national anthem is sung during a sacred Yankee ceremony that is called a “football game.” Meanwhile, here in Canada, Justin Trudeau has been trying to divert our attention away from his vile speech to the United Nations last week expressing his hatred of the country whose government he leads and his scheme to bleed small business owners dry, by preening and grandstanding and virtue-signalling his supposed moral superiority to his political and ideological opponents on the matter of “women’s rights.”
There is a standing committee in the House of Commons that addresses the “Status of Women.” This should not be confused with the Cabinet Ministry or the National Action Committee (a private lobby/activist group, albeit one that once was heavily funded by the government) of the same name although historically these all have their beginnings in the Pearson/Trudeau Liberal cultural revolution of the ’60’s and ’70s and have been ideologically in sync with each other. The House committee is one whose chair, by established custom, is selected not by the governing party, but by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, which at this time happens to be the Conservative Party of Canada. Accordingly, the new Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer nominated Rachael Harder, the MP representing Lethbridge to chair the committee. When this was announced on Tuesday, all the Liberal MPs on the committee walked out, along with the New Democrat members, and Trudeau immediately called a press conference in which he declared his support of those who walked out.
What was the reason for the walk out? Does Harder support the importing into Canada of cultures in which the genitals of young females are ritually mutilated or in which male relatives are encouraged to kill daughters and sisters that in their opinion have brought dishonour upon their family through promiscuity or dress that they see as being too provocative? No, it is the Liberals and NDP themselves who do that, who want to criminalize all criticism of such cultures, and who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of racism, xenophobia, and bigotry (and probably anti-Semitism and homophobia as well since in left-liberal usage these kind of words have a purely expletive function that has little to do with their literal meaning). The reason the progressives are having conniptions over Harder is because she is pro-life. She does not believe that women should have the right to murder their unborn babies.
The neoconservative press has subjected the MPs who walked out and the Prime Minister who supported them to much deserved criticism and ridicule. The Sun newspaper chain, for example, published an editorial entitled “Liberals Fail to Embrace Diversity of Opinion” which pointed out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who loudly proclaim their devotion and dedication to “diversity” but seem to have little regard for diversity of viewpoint in that they are notoriously intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. The Grits deserve every word of this criticism which brings to mind the old quip of William F. Buckley Jr. about how liberals “claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” On this particular issue you might recall that a year and a half before the 2015 Dominion election Trudeau had announced that new candidates seeking the nomination of the Liberal Party would be required to give their full support to women’s “right” to murder their unborn babies. Not to be outdone in his support for the right of baby murder, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair declared that all NDP candidates, new and old, were required to vote the party line on this issue.
Yes, the Grits and their socialist doppelgangers, with their idolatrous cult of diversity on the one hand and their neo-Stalinist, ideological, party line on the other, are every bit the hypocrites the Sun editorial makes them out to be. There is other, far more important, criticism that deserves to be heard, but which sadly, you will never read in the pages of a mainstream Canadian publication. Neoconservatives, which is to say people who call themselves conservative but by this term mean “American classical liberal”, such as those who set the editorial policy for the Sun chain, are the only dissenters from the left-liberal ideological monolith that are tolerated in the mainstream Canadian media.
What really needs to be said is that the pro-life position is the only sane position and that anyone who believes that women have some sort of natural right to terminate their pregnancies that ought to be protected as a legal right is bat-shit crazy and ought not to be allowed into any position of authority, power, and influence or entrusted with any responsibility higher than that of sweeping the floors in an institution in which they are humanely kept for their own safety and that of society. No, in case you are wondering, my saying this does not make me guilty of the mirror image of the hypocrisy displayed by the Liberals and NDP. I don’t worship at the altar of diversity.
When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg a zygote is formed that is a) living and b) human, ergo, a human life. To deliberately take a human life is murder except in the following circumstances: when you are acting out of necessity in self-defence, when you are the state official entrusted with executing a sentence of death determined by a lawfully constituted court on someone found guilty of a capital crime, or when you are a soldier fighting for your country. None of these exceptions can possibly apply here and so the termination of the life of the unborn is murder. It should not be thought of as a medical procedure since it is in complete violation of everything the medical practice has traditionally stood for. It is a particularly odious form of murder in that it is done at the request of those who have a particular responsibility to love and cherish that life.
Those who defend it, rely entirely upon spurious, easily-refutable, arguments such as the hard cases argument about pregnancies that ensue from rape or incest, or those which endanger the life of the mother. Even if it were not the case – and it is – that such cases represent only a tiny percentage of the total number of terminated pregnancies each year, it is a well-established legal maxim that hard cases make bad law.
Even the real motivation behind the demand for legal abortion is ultimately a lie. Giving one sex the unilateral power of life and death over the next generation does not create “sexual equality.” Feminists accuse the traditional, patriarchal, family, of dehumanizing women but if anything does that it is this insane insistence on their supposed right to murder their children.
There is one other thing that really needs to be said about all of this and that is that a standing House committee – or a Ministry for that matter – devoted to the “Status of Women” sounds like something out of George Orwell’s 1984. The status of women – and of men for that matter – in any society, arises out of the way the sexes interact and relate to each other, primarily within the family, and it is best to allow it to evolve within the living tradition of a culture rather than to try and artificially engineer it. If you reflect for a moment on the slogan of the 1960s revival of feminism, “the personal is the political”, you will see that this is a recipe for totalitarianism. Which is why this is the sort of thing that belongs in a regime like the former Soviet Union, Red China, or North Korea and not in a free, parliamentary country of the British Commonwealth that is heir to the Common Law under the Crown.
When any nation that is not part of ‘The Neo Con Empire’, for example China, silences the opposition to its governing regime by accusing its critics of ‘Hate’ and locking them away under ‘Hate Laws’ , the Western liberal media goes bezerk and fires off a volley of denunciations. However, the same media is hypocritically either strangely silent, or full of applause when its own liberal Western ruling regimes use the same methods and laws to imprison and silence their own dissidents. To be a dissident in the West these days is to be a defender of the true Western values and to be against the extermination of things we used to take for granted, such as: family; community; culture; nation, race and indeed the West itself. People of European origin in North America, as elsewhere in the world, are the victims of a cultural Marxist political and media elite dedicated to their replacement by massive Third World immigration. Simultaneously, there are strenuous efforts by the same elite to suppress criticism of this policy of dispossession by a variety of legal measures, (hate laws, etc.), media boycott and social sanctions for dissenters. Paul Fromm speaks extensively on immigration and free speech issues worldwide. He heads the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and The Canadian Association for Free Expression. He has battled Canada’s oppressive internet censors and supported Ernst Zundel and David Irving. For the past four years, he has been media spokesman for the European American Heritage Festival, held annually in late October in Pulaski, Tennessee. He has a daily one hour commentary show on WhiteResistanceRadio.com. This autumn he covered the 12-day trial of Arthur Topham, (Radicalpress.com), who was charged with promoting “hate” under Canada’s notorious “hate law”.– Jez Turnner, London Forum.
