We are almost a quarter of a century into the third millennium Anno Domini. In that period the alphabet soup – LGBTTQAEIOUandsometimesY – gang has grown accustomed to getting whatever it demands, no matter how ludicrous, absurd, or even downright insane, the demand happens to be. This is true in general across the civilization formerly known as Christendom but nowhere more so than here in the Dominion of Canada. It has been especially true here for the last nine years since Captain Airhead became the creepiest little low-life sleazebag ever to disgrace the office of the first minister of His Majesty’s government in Ottawa. Captain Airhead has aggressively promoted the craziest, most fringe, and least defensible elements of the alphabet soup agenda as if they were commonsensical, had the weight of universally recognized moral truth behind them, and could be opposed only by knuckle-dragging moral reprobates. If knuckle-dragging moral reprobation is what is required to oppose such things then Captain Airhead ought to be leading the opposition. He was never able to add two and two together and come up with four, however. Just look at his budgets.
One consequence of Captain Airhead’s alphabet soup policies has been a sharp decline in average intelligence in the country. We might call this the Trudeau Effect. It is the opposite of the Flynn Effect, the psychometric phenomenon named after James Flynn by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in The Bell Curve (1994) that was the reason standardized IQ tests needed to be revised, updated, and recalibrated periodically to prevent the average from running significantly over 100. The Trudeau Effect is when, due to constant government-backed gas-lighting and bullying, intelligence so declines that people no longer understand the difference between what is true in reality and what someone mistakenly thinks or imagines to be true. Before Captain Airhead we could say in response to those pushing the trans part of the alphabet soup agenda that we don’t accept that the person who thinks he is a chicken actually is a chicken, we don’t accept that the person who thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte actually is who he thinks he is, and neither should we accept that the boy who thinks he is a girl is a girl or that the girl who thinks she is a boy is a boy. Today, not only do fewer and fewer people understand this, the aggressive promotion of the trans agenda has brought us to the point where there is now a demand that we regard people who think they are something other than people as being what they think or say they are.
This is why it has been rather encouraging over the last year or so to see a growing push back against this insanity. Most recently, Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, announced a new set of policies and upcoming legislation for her province that would restrict the genital and breast mutilation sickeningly called by such deranged euphemisms as gender-reassignment surgery or gender-affirming care to those who have reached the age of majority, ban puberty-blockers for those under the age of 16, require that parents be notified and give their consent when pervert teachers try to brainwash their kids into thinking they are the opposite sex/gender, require parental consent for sex education and that all sex ed curricula be approved by the minister of education, and prevent the sort of situation that Ray Stevens has hilariously lampooned in his new song “Since Bubba Changed His Name to Charlene”. In other words, policies and legislation that anyone who isn’t a total idiot, insane, under the influence of an evil spirit or a substance that turns one’s mind to goo or both, evil on a megalomaniacal scale, or some combination of these, could and would support. Needless to say, both Captain Airhead and Jimmy Dhaliwal, the supervillain who somehow broke out of the cartoon universe and into our own and having been denied entry to India due to his connections to the extremists who want to break that country up opted to become the leader of the socialist party here, have been having conniptions over this.
Most news media commentators have joined the whacko politicians like Airhead and Dhaliwal in howling in outrage over what could be best described as the very, bare bones, minimum of a sensible provincial policy towards alphabet soup gender politics. This will not come as a shock to many, I suspect. Canadian newspapers have acted as if their role was to propagate the ideas of and bolster support for the Liberal Party since at least the time when John Wesley Defoe edited the Winnipeg Free Press. Arguably it goes back even further to when George Brown edited the Toronto Globe, the predecessor of today’s Globe and Mail. That the new technological means of mass communication seemed designed to project a distorted view of reality that served the interests of some ideological vision of progress rather than of truth was a critique made by such varied observers as the American Richard M. Weaver, the French Jacques Ellul, and the Canadian Marshall McLuhan. It was radio, television, and the motion picture industry that these men had in mind. The second revolution in mass communications technology that gave us the internet, smartphones, social media, and streaming services has since eclipsed the first. It has not rectified the problem those astute social critics and technosceptics saw in the earlier mass communications media any more than Captain Airhead’s bailout of the struggling Canadian newspapers solved the problem of their heavy bias towards the Liberal Party but rather, in both instances, the problem was exponentially magnified.
John Ibbitson wrote a piece that argued that Smith’s policies were endangering all teenagers in Alberta. Naturally, the Globe and Mail had the poor taste to publish it. The obvious reality is that no teenagers – or anybody else for that matter – are endangered by Smith’s policies. Max Fawcett, the lead columnist for Canada’s National Observer, attempted to argue that Smith, who has long been identified with the libertarian wing of Canadian conservatism, has betrayed her ideology. As Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservative Party, pointed out, however, when he – finally – took a stand in favour what Smith was doing, prohibiting people from making irreversible, life-altering, decisions while they are children means protecting their right to make adult choices as adults. That is hardly something that could be described as irreconcilably out of sync with libertarian ideals As an indicator of just how cuckoo most of the media reporting on this has been, Ibbitson’s and Fawcett’s are among the saner of the anti-Smith pieces that have appeared.
Poilievre also predicted that Captain Airhead will eventually have to back down on this issue. I certainly hope that he is right about that and that soon we will have the pleasure of watching Captain Airhead eat his own words. In the meantime, it is good to see that a rational, sane, pushback against the alphabet soup madness has finally begun. Let us hope and pray that it continues and spreads. — Gerry T. Neal
The fight is on! Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party just tabled their latest censorship law, Bill C-63. It’s a shocking piece of legislation that claims to target “hate speech” and “hate propaganda,” but in reality, it’s just another attempt by Trudeau to seize control of the Internet and silence his critics. While Jagmeet Singh and the NDP continue to prop up the Liberals, there’s a good chance this bill will become law — and that could be the end of Rebel News and independent journalism in Canada.Click here for the latest and help us fight back!
What exactly is “harm” and “hate speech” according to Trudeau? They’re not real crimes — they’re thought crimes — a way to shut down and punish anyone who questions the official government narrative. And there’s nothing Trudeau hates more than prickly journalists willing to ask him tough questions. We all know about his admiration for Communist China’s “basic” dictatorship. And as we saw during the Freedom Convoy, he won’t hesitate to act like a tyrant when given the opportunity. (Imagine what would have happened to the Freedom Convoy if Rebel News wasn’t there to tell the other side of the story.) We’re prepared to fight this in court all the way. In fact, we’re already working behind the scenes with our lawyers to prepare for what could be one of our biggest fights yet. That’s why we need your help. This is a matter of survival — we’re up against the full resources of the state. So if you can spare $5, $50, or $500, we promise to put everything we have into winning this fight. If you can donate towards our legal fees, please do. Simply click here or go to StopTheCensorship.ca. Yours truly, Ezra Levant Rebel News
Jordan Peterson: Trudeau and the equity tyrants must be stopped
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world Author of the article: Jordan Peterson Published Sep 11, 2023 • Last updated 2 days ago • 9 minute read 1664 Comments
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a press conference during a stopover visit to Singapore on September 8, 2023. (Photo by Roslan RAHMAN / AFP)
Some of those reading this column will know that I have been ordered by the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo “social media re-training” of indeterminate length, as a consequence of expressing my opinions publicly, with the specified outcome of my comprehensive compliance, as judged by my re-educators.
The charges levied against me include re-tweeting a tweet by the Leader of the Official Opposition in Canada (are you listening, “conservatives”?), criticizing Justin Trudeau and a diverse number of his minions, and expressing skepticism about the doom-saying fear-mongering tyranny-promoting chicken-little prognostications of the eco-fascists.
Why should Canadians care? If you’re a miner, and the canary caged next to you asphyxiates, you don’t blame the bird for being there. You notice that the air has become toxic, and you make tracks for the surface. Regulated professionals, subject to the petty tyranny of their overseeing agencies, are now starting to gasp and choke. Them first — you, next.
It’s already true in Canada that lawyers cannot have the reasonable certainty they once had with regard to the outcome of the cases they are pursuing, relying as they once did on precedent and the common or even civil law. Instead, they have to be prepared to be subjected to the opinions of an increasingly activist court, whose members have taken it upon themselves to put forward what is essentially a radical leftist (“progressive”) agenda. It’s true that physicians and teachers are so afraid to say what they think that even the reasonable among them no longer dare to tell the truth to the patients and children they serve. How do I know this? Because they tell me so. And how well do Canadians presume that the professionals they need will serve them, when they have all been cowed into, at best, liars of silence?
And why should Canadians believe in the existence and operation of such an agenda, rather than (comfortingly) passing such suggestions off as the ranting of demented, conspiratorially-minded right wingers, such as myself?
Here are a couple of facts (remember those?) simultaneously indisputable and unpleasant: Our “Minister of the Environment and Climate Change,” Steven Guilbeault, was not only a radical leftist activist, in his previous incarnation, but is now simultaneously savaging the economy of Western Canada, upon whose revenue his home province of Quebec shamefully, ungratefully and resentfully depends upon, while he works directly with the Chinese Communist Party, rulers of a country building more coal plants every year (two a week) than the rest of the world combined; six times more, to be precise.
He is doing that while rumours of CCP influence over the Canadian electoral process abound (!), under the supervision of a prime minister who has explicitly expressed admiration for the efficiency of communist tyranny, who was a friend to the demented tyrant who ran Cuba as his private fiefdom for decades. That would be Fidel Castro, bosom buddy as well as to Trudeau senior, and the same man who told former president Jimmy Carter that he would have sacrificed his whole island paradise to nuclear annihilation by our American allies just to move the Soviet agenda forward.
He is doing that under the rainbow-festooned banner of a “Liberal” party that has moved so far to the left that the hapless socialist NDP has nothing whatsoever left to offer (particularly labouring as they do under Jagmeet Singh, the most hypocritical politician Canada has ever coughed onto dry land. He is an empty suit of designer clothes too incompetent even to have bargained for the cabinet seat that is the going price, on the world market, for a politician’s soul).
He is doing that as part of an administration that is an express supporter of the deadly doctrine of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity, the mask that the wolves of compassion wear while they open the throats of the idiot sheep who think they are supporting all that is good and true. Equity: there’s a basket of snakes. What does equity mean? The useful idiots of the moderate left insist that it’s just a synonym for “equality of opportunity.” Why the new word, then, thinkers on the liberal side?
Equity means something very particular, good Canadians. It means that all economic and social systems that do not produce precise equality of outcomes across all possible measures of human difference (race, ethnicity, sex, “gender,” age, health status, ability, you name it) are to be regarded as “systemically prejudiced” and utterly re-tooled, in a revolutionary manner. What’s wrong with that, you ask, thinking of the excluded and the “marginalized,” in that manner so sympathetic endlessly and conveniently deserving of praise; considering yourself, despite your lack of actual effort on their behalf, a friend of the poor.
Let me ask you a straightforward question: do you own anything? A cell phone, perhaps; maybe a car; possibly even an apartment or house (although that is increasingly unlikely, particularly for young people, in Trudeau’s socialist paradise). Does that not mean that other people (the same marginalized; the same poor) don’t own that phone, that car, that house? Are you not therefore excluding them? The answer to that question, by the way, is “yes.” Of course you’re bloody well excluding them — oppressing them, marginalizing them, with your exclusive access to what you have hypothetically worked to earn.
“Property is theft”: no shortage of barely successful peasants such as yourself have died as a consequence of that cliché. How did societies get themselves to that point? By adopting the doctrine of equity, which is now deemed a mandatory belief by the professional organizations that regulate lawyers, physicians, psychologists, accountants, engineer and teachers (and that is not nearly all) in Canada.
Equity is no different than communism, boys and girls. Wait: let me clarify, as that is an error, but not in the direction you think. It’s far worse than mere communism. Marx had nothing on the post-modernists, who now occupy the universities, and have dramatically expanded upon his dread and murderous vision. Marx viewed oppression as essentially one-dimensional: the proletariat (that’s the poor for those of you who went through Canada’s “education” system and still don’t know even that) were exploited by the “bourgeoisie” (that turns out to be “anyone who owns anything at all”). That has happened forever; that’s all you really need to know about history and human social relationships in general; and it has to stop. By any means necessary.
Hence the hundred million or so deaths at the hands of the compassionate progressives in the 20th century. Of course, that wasn’t real communism.
You can tell, because some people were accidentally left standing.
For the postmodernists whose theories now dominate the academy and, increasingly, the western world, the bitter resentment of Marx was just the beginning. The concept of oppression is now limitlessly multi-dimensional. Everyone has become a victim, because of their height, their weight, their lack of attractiveness or athletic ability, their country of origin, their religious belief, the status of their ancestors.
What’s the problem with that? After all, life is hard, and much is distributed unfairly. Well, when everyone is a victim, everyone also becomes, perforce, an oppressor — and the punishment for that is severe. Maybe you’re a bit fat (victim, victim), but you’re white, or the tan that we now call brown that could become white in a flash. Presto! You’re a perpetrator. Maybe you don’t own a house (victim, victim). But you own a rusty old wreck from the 90s. Compared to those who can only afford a bicycle (perhaps because they’re useless layabouts) you are definitely an oppressor. Perhaps you’re genuinely poor (victim victim), but you’re young. You can be certain that you are then at least afflicted by implicit ageism, and your very youth a mark of at least your unconscious bias and general shameful reprehensibility.
Are you beginning to understand the game? I doubt it. It’s much easier for Canadians to keep their sheep/ostrich-heads firmly in the sand, and assume that anyone pointing out not so much what’s going on but what’s already happened is an extremist, a bigot, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, a Confederate sympathizer (in Canada (!)), a MAGA Republican, hell-bent for God only knows what possible reason on overthrowing Canadian democracy.
As if they bloody well care.
As if they even know where Canada is.
Why am I fighting the college? Probably because I’m stupid, or at least, as a Canadian journalist so famously put it, “the stupid person’s smart person.” Touché. Seriously (although all educators are, perforce, the stupid people’s smart person). But I have plenty of money, and a wife I love, and a family that supports me, and friends that do as well, and the opportunity to live anywhere I want to in the world, and have been informed by those who run other political jurisdictions that they would restore my licence in a heart-beat if the low-level schemers in eternally good-thinking Ontario manage to purloin it, as they probably will. I really don’t need the hassle, to say nothing of the literally tens of thousands of dollars it costs per month to keep the vipers at bay.
The process is the punishment, as those who have successfully weaponized many such deep-state bureaucracies know full well.
I am doing it to bring to the attention of Canadians — and, if not Canadians, whose smug self-complacency is perhaps unparalleled in the world (except maybe in comparison to the Kiwis or the liberal Californians) — then to people elsewhere in the West, increasingly inclined as they are to see what is happening in Canada, just as intelligent miners see their canaries.
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world. As Canada goes, so hope the progressives, the world goes. Thus, the good fight might as well be fought here. I have a son, a daughter-in-law, and grandchildren in this benighted country. My parents live here. My daughter departed for freer lands, and I won’t forgive the current administration for that. Her example is tempting, and I’ve lived in the United States before — but the same problem exists among our neighbours to the south, despite their more extensive commitment to the freedom that has vanished with amazing rapidity in the Great White North.
It is not that freedom of speech is threatened in Canada, by the way, good people. It’s that it’s already pretty much gone — although, God willing, not permanently. The same can be said for freedom of conscience and association. We gave up freedom of mobility under Trudeau, which was the only freedom he could directly threaten, in his attempt to (successfully) divide Canadians, and therefore promptly did.
We still have the freedom to pretend that everything is just as it was 20 or even 10 years ago. But it’s not. The fact that I am being persecuted for criticizing the prime minister, for passing on the opinions of Pierre Poilievre, and for doubting the opinions of that veritable traitor, Steven Guilbeault, is a primary indication of that. My case would not be attracting the international attention that it is — as is the prosecution of the Trucker Convoy leaders, whose protest was widely admired outside this country — if that was not the case.
Why should you care? It’s not about me, folks. I have options.
“Responsibility to keep people safe from misinformation cannot rest in the hands of private companies. It has to be the government taking responsibility.” “The Liberal government has not done the job of making sure platforms are following the rules around making sure hate and misinformation are not being spread.
“No surprise that Cultural Action Party of Canada has a different take on the issue. PM Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have done a wonderful job of promoting hate and misinformation– against Old Stock Canadians.For nearly eight years, PM Trudeau has been assaulting the dignity of Canada’s Anglo-European communities. Anglophones, Western Canadians, Christians, farmers, truckers, oil workers, and the rest of “grass roots” Canada.
If a citizen is not “racialized,” homosexual, transsexual or a permutation in-between, Trudeau has no use for them. Except for their tax-dollars, of course.
New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh is just as spiteful as boss-man Trudeau. Somehow, this powerless political figure has found himself in a unique position.Powerless– yet powerful at the same time. Over the course of five years as NDP leader, Mr. Singh has empowered his party to zero extent. When he began, the New Democrats held 46 seats in Parliament. Today, they hold 25 seats.
Let CAP do what mainstream media never will. Namely, to juxtapose NDP party degeneration with the fact that in many ways, Jagmeet Singh holds the key to Justin Trudeau’s Woke Liberal kingdom.Seems a common thread exists between these two men. Both have unending contempt for Canadian society, and our Anglophone-British heritage communities in particular
What has happened to Indigenous people in Canada is genocide, no question about it. There were clearly systems in place designed to kill them.“ The genocide was against Indigenous people. And it is a genocide that is ongoing.”Never mind that in 2022, Indigenous Canadians are among the fastest-growing identifiable communities in Canada. As opposed to demographic free-fall that Anglophone communities are experiencing at present.
Only to unravel a further commonality: Trudeau and Singh are pushing to erode freedom of expression in Canada:“The government has a responsibility to play in making sure social media platforms are adhering to proper guidelines around misinformation, around hate, and why we have been saying for a long time the responsibility to keep people safe from misinformation and radicalization cannot rest in the hands of private companies,” said Singh.“It has to be the government taking responsibility.
”Proponents of freedom of speech beware: Jagmeet Singh wants to transition expression of opinion to full government control. The structure is what is found in communist China, via their government’s Great Internet Firewall.CAP pull no punches: it is possible that Jagmeet Singh is a greater threat to freedom and democracy in Canada than ersatz bossman, Justin Trudeau.
Together, the dynamic duo of neo-communists have 38 million Canadians by the short-hairs.In September, 2022, PM Trudeau said he is “committed to regulating the internet.”“The government believes in free speech,” said Trudeau. “But with social media there is a new way to foment anger and hate that is different from anything we have seen before, difficult to counter, and it is destabilizing our democracy.”
In CAP-land, this statement is known as a bald-faced lie. In more sophisticated terms, it’s an example of “Doublespeak,” defined as language that deliberately obscures, disguises, or reverses the meaning of words.It’s a technique that Trudeau has lifted from the communist dictators he so admires– Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro in particular.In no manner is the internet destabilizing our democracy. This tactic falls squarely on the shoulders of the authoritarian tag-team of Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh.
Together or apart, these two are Canada’s greatest threat to democracy. So much so that, in CAP’s opinion, the Liberal-NDP quasi-communist pact signed earlier in the year is sowing the seeds for an eventual downfall of democratic governance in Canada.“We are living in a very difficult time right now. The problem arises when disagreements are built on falsehoods or wrong factsbecause then it becomes difficult to have a real debate and genuine exchange of ideas.”
And who shall decide what constitutes falsehoods and wrongful facts? Trudeau and Singh are pushing for the Liberals to play judge and jury for what can be disseminated on the internet in Canada.China, Cuba, Soviet Union? In all cases, freedom of speech fell under absolute control of government. With commonality in the form of authoritarian governance, Canadians would do well to recognize that Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh want the very same for our country.– With files from Western Standard News.
At this time, it cannot be forgotten that the COVID-19 Communist takeover scam continues. Criminals in our gov’ts appear to have given us a break – all the while admitting that they will be back in the fall.
This break has not prohibited these Gov’ts from continuing to falsify charges against and prosecute innocent people who simply refuse to comply. These criminals continue to promote masks/vaccinations at various locations such as hospitals as well. Our goal for the absolute return of our rights and freedoms, will and must continue. Do not be led to believe that it is all over. It is not – far from it.
We urge everyone to obtain a copy of the book, “The Politics of Obedience” by Etienne de la Boetie, written over 400 years ago to obtain an excellent understanding of the power we have by simply exercising our Constitutional right/power to peaceful civil disobedience.
This Constitutional right/power originates from the breach of the Coronation Oath contract with the Monarch.
Remember…
The majority of the world’s population remains unvaccinated!
Bonnie Henry’s stats are lies!
—————————————
As noted below for our Rallies updates, there is a Canadian “Ocean2Ocean” rally this coming June 4, 2022.
Speakers will be announced.
CLEAR will be partnering with Ocean2Ocean, featuring our CLEAR MEGA Rally on this date, including our MEGA March in downtown Kelowna.
Please join us on June 4, 2022 for our national opposition to the entire COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns, Federal and Provincial.
See below for details and speakers!
—————————————
“Trucker Freedom
Convoy and the
Collapse of
Liberalism in
Canada”
This is one of the best overviews I have seen in relation to the trucker convoy. Discussing over 24 issues and exposing the documented lies from our Governments, all supported with excellent research and documentation, this work is a must read for everyone who simply could not keep up with the daily Government lies to us in relation to the trucker rally.
Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored.
—————————————
Kelowna UNITYhas excellent information and statistics opposing the Gov’t narrative on COVID-19, including excellent science on the RAPID tests and associated dangers, and a 38 page Pfizer report on Adverse Events data.
A wonderful brochure is also available on their website providing information and links to other groups and sources of information.
Odessa, at librti.com, provides an informative interview here with Ken Drysdale, author of “Investigation into Criminal Allegations Concerning COVID 19 Pandemic Response”. There is an incredible amount of statistics and information confirming the criminal activity of gov’t officials, and supported by their own statistics!
See Odessa’s interview with Ken Drysdale, one of the authors of this incredible book of statistics in Canada.
Jagmeet Singh, de facto Liberal supporter and Communist, publicly announced on May 20 that he believes that most Canadians support mandatory vaccine passports – and for those who refuse – “…there would be consequences for those who are not able to or not willing to do that and we can look at what those consequences are.”
I think we should look at what the consequences are for breaking your Oath of Allegiance to HMTQ and promoting Communism, and criminal assaults upon people, instead of our Christian common law.
A Vernon B.C. man in hospital, noticed Bonnie the Commie in a video plea that made him feel as if he was back in Communist Chile under Augusto Pinochet, due to prohibition on visitors, leaving him in isolation from his own family.
His comparison of this situation to torture is, sadly, an accurate portrayal of the results of The Commie’s Orders.
Here are some excellent studies and reports in this article, including an interview with Mark Steyn, discussing the statistics confirming the dangers associated with the COVID-19 experimental injection vaccines.
“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded—and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed such emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist.”
F. A. Hayek
—————————————
Not that I am a supporter of the Catholic Church in any way – however, a recent announcement by an Archbishop has excellent overlap with our common law principles and Coronation Oath of the Monarch, that we cannot let others tell our Governments and Monarch what to do, as we surrender our sovereignty to these bodies that we have no control over. It is a criminal offence to do so and we should immediately withdraw from the UN and WHO.
————-
DECLARATION
REGARDINGTHEYIELDING OFSOVEREIGNTYTOTHE
WHO FOR THEMANAGEMENTOFHEALTHEMERGENCIES
“In the coming days, the Nations that adhere to the World Health Organization will vote on resolutions regarding the WHO’s management of pandemics. These resolutions will transfer sovereignty regarding the health of citizens to a supranational body that is largely financed by the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. If these resolutions are approved by a majority, the WHO will have exclusive international authority in the case of a pandemic to impose all the rules, including quarantines, lockdowns, obligatory vaccinations and vaccine passports. It should also be borne in mind that this organization enjoys immunity, and thus its members cannot be either tried or convicted if they commit crimes. Unelected technocrats will paradoxically have more power than that which citizens confer on their representatives by means of their democratic vote.
Given that the yielding of sovereignty is considered the crime of high treason by the laws of every nation, and that Parliaments may not legislate against the interests of the Nation, much less violate the natural liberties and fundamental rights of the citizens whom they represent, I believe that it will not escape anyone’s notice that this attempt by the WHO to appropriate a power that properly belongs to individual Nations is intended to impede any sort of opposition to the Agenda 2030, which in the field of healthcare also aims to accomplish the drastic reduction of medical and hospital services, the privatization of the health industry, and disease prevention by means of vaccines.”
Join the OK Falls freedom activists who are now just beginning their local Freedom Rallies!
—————
May 28, 2022 12:00 noon
Oliver Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m. Town Hall
Join the Oliver freedom activists who are now just beginning their local Freedom Rallies!
—————
May 28, 2022 11:00 a.m.
Osoyoos Freedom Gathering
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Town Hall
—————
May 29, 2022 1:00 p.m.
Penticton Freedom Rally
1:00 p.m. Warren & Main St. in N.E. lot
Join Mary Lou for the largest rally in the South Okanagan, and growing weekly!
For those who believe and demand that our gov’t hire back the incredible nurses that they terminated for refusing to be vaxxed, we urge you to go to this site and support these nurses get their jobs back!
Loss of Freedoms & Canada’s End the Lockdown Movement
[On May 17, the Globe and Mail published an opinion piece co-authored by Bernie Farber smearing the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies. For several days, I sought to reach the editor and Opinion Page editor of the Globe. They are unreachable by phone. I sent an e-mail proposing a rebuttal piece. I got no answer. I submitted a response which forms part of the article below. I received no answer. The Globe happily publishes smears by one of Canada’s most notorious opponents of free speech, but permits no reply. Here is the Farber hatchet job: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-overlap-between-lockdown-agitators-and-hate-groups-is-a-threat-to/]
Since mid-March, 2020, End the Lockdown rallies have been a regular weekly occurrence in cities across Canada. At first, most of the press ignored them or dismissed them, as Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford did, a “a bunch of yahoos.” However, their staying and spread across the Dominion have made them impossible to ignore.
So, many in the elite have changed their tune.
Calgary’s mayor Naheed Nenshi is a Moslem who alleges that the End The Lockdown Movement is a vast rightwing conspiracy. “They are people who are marching in thinly veiled white nationalist supremacist anti-government protests,” he said. His accusations were echoed by Jagmeet Singh, he of the rainbow coloured collection of turbans, the $2,000 suits, the BMW Coup, hailed by BuzzFeed as the “most stylish politician in Canada”. He is a supporter of the radical Sikh Khalistan movement and, in 2013, was banned from India. He heads the socialist New Democratic Party in the Dominion Parliament. Recently Singh said the protests are part of “extreme right-wing ideology.” He complained “To brazenly not follow public-health guidelines puts people at risk and that is something that we’ve seen with extreme right-wing ideology, ”
And Bernie Farber, long one of Canada’s fiercest opponents of free speech weighed in. Writing in the Globe and Mail (May 17, 2021)he alleged: “The principal actors of the anti-lockdown movement have either been or rubbed elbows with some significant haters on the scene. Vancouver neo-Nazi Brian Ruhe, Quebec’s far-right conspiracy streamer Alexis Cossette-Trudel, a big name among France’s QAnon following, is an important mouthpiece of the francophone anti-lockdown movement. Neo-Nazi Paul Fromm is a fixture at rallies in both Ontario and in Kelowna, B.C. Antimask activist Chris Saccoccia’s social-media feeds feature Holocaust denial and racist posts.” Farber was for years the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose lobbying brought about Canada’s notorious Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, the “hate law”. Farber lobbied mightily to have me fired from my 25-year teaching position as an English instructor in Peel County. He now heads the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), funded by federal government grants and a huge donation from the Bank of Montreal.
The CAHN tosses around the smear “neo-Nazi” promiscuously. Farber’s fellow board member at the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Evan Balgord elaborated on the conspiracy theory: “We have two pandemics: We have the actual pandemic and then we have this pandemic of hate.Things are kind of getting worse both online and offline … with maybe one pandemic, we have kind of a solution for, but the hate thing, we don’t have a vaccine for that.” The Toronto Star (May 10, 2021) quoted Balgord: “Balgord said such events make for ‘fertile hunting’ for new recruits because hateful ideas are not being policed, and once someone believes in one conspiracy theory, it’s easy to believe in others. ‘We now have a greatly increased number of people who are coming into close contact with racists and bigots of all stripes with more conspiracy theories.'” he said.
As early as last December, Canada’s censorship lobby was sounding the alarm. The Kelowna Courier (December 18, 2020) reported: “Anti-mask and anti-lockdown rallies in Kelowna have caught the attention of anti-hate groups across Canada because of what they say are ties to a known Canadian white supremacist. According to Elizabeth Simons, deputy director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the presence of Paul Fromm at several local rallies dating back to the spring, and his association with rally organizer David Kevin Lindsay, are troubling.
Fromm has been described by anti-hate groups as a known neo-Nazi. According to Simonds, far-right and white-nationalist groups and supporters are directly involved in organizing many similar rallies across Canada. ‘It’s hugely concerning seeing this trend right across the country,’ she said.”
Jewish lobby groups have, in the past, been adept at “divide and conquer”, decreeing who may associate with whom or meet with whom without being tainted.
However, with Canada’s End the Lockdown movement, the old tactic is just not working. That’s because of the nature of the movement, as I shall explain. If the End the Lockdown movement is not a vast rightwing conspiracy, then what is it? As they say on the dating sites: “It’s complicated.”
On May 17, the Globe ran an opinion piece by Bernie Farber and David Fisman entitled “Overlap between lockdown agitators and hate groups is a threat to us all” which caricatured the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies that have occurred on a weekly across the Dominion.
A reader, uninformed by information available on the Internet or his own experience at a local rally, might conclude these rallies comprised people strutting around in funny armbands or earnest conspiracy weirdos with tinfoil hats. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Attend one of these rallies and, although the attendees are angry at the job killing lockdowns, and the loss of freedom to gather to worship, you find a happy atmosphere, reminiscent of a 60s love-in. Far from being a “hate group”, these rallies are joyous events, often with people dancing to boom box music and songs like Twisted Sister’s “We’re not gonna take it anymore” or Rolling Stones Mick Jagger’s new anti-lockdown song “Easy Sleazy”. No one wears a mask — well, occasionally, some wit wears one of those mediaeval doctor’s masks that looks like a bird’s beak. People embrace and hug complete strangers. Everyone is welcome. Indeed, one of the groups participating in many rallies is called Hugs Over Masks. In Toronto, a Chinese lady circulates through the crowd offering a tray of her home-baked treats free to fellow “freedom fighters.” Sadly, this elegant lady, in high heels and a fashionable dress, was handcuffed and arrested on May 8 for being in possession of a megaphone.
The END THE LOCKDOWN rallies are a political protestof a sort unseen since World War II. They started in Vancouver in mid-March 2020 The next weekend, they spread to Toronto. Those calling for an end to the crippling lockdown were sniffily dismissed by Premier Ford as “a bunch of yahoos”. Ironically, many of these people had been part of his populist “Ford Nation.”
Since then, the rallies have spread right across the country. The remarkable fact about these protests is their regularity and consistency. They occur weekly in cities large and small. Movements in the past have staged mass rallies but not weekly and not right across the country. In the late ’60s, the left organized large anti-war demonstrations in major cities opposing the war in Vietnam twice a year. Similarly, in the mid-80s, the left staged large demonstrations against President Reagan’s star wars programme. Although these demonstrations were large, they were not weekly. Other groups have organized large protests but only on occasion like Right to Life’s annual pro-life rally in Ottawa and demonstrations against specific legislation like more stringent gun control.
The consistency and persistence of the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies are remarkable and they have spread and become a weekly occurrence from Kelowna to Penticton to Kamloops to Calgary to Edmonton to Fort McMurray to Saskatoon to Brantford and many other places. These rallies are really like ’60s “happenings.” The word goes out, usually over the Internet and concerned people show up, often with little advance notice and usually with little media attention. For instance, on May 14, over an estimated 50,000 END THE LOCKDOWN supporters gathered in Queen’s Park and heard speakers like Maxime Bernier, leader of the populist People’s Party of Canada. The rally and Mr. Bernier’s message went all but uncovered in the mainstream media. That evening, a smaller demonstration estimated at about 5,000 people supporting Palestine had sporadic clashes with a smaller group supporting Israel at Nathan Phillips Square. That was the event that got all the media attention.
Participants hail from a wide range of backgrounds. I have talked to participants who voted Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative or People’s Party in the last election. Mr. Farber, who, I suspect, has never attended an END THE LOCKDOWN rally, alleges participants are dedicated to “an anti-public health agenda aimed at undermining the Canadian economy and the health and well-being of Canadians”.
What unites these people, young and old, working class, middle-class, rural, urban, is a passionate attachment to freedoms they see being vacuumed away in government lockdowns and restrictions. Far from undermining the economy, they want the economy re-opened and the job and business crippling lockdowns ended, perhaps like the state of Florida which is wide open, with businesses open and no enforced mask mandate and an infection rate slightly lower than Ontario, which has been locked down since November.
Some from the start some feared that enforced masking was a dry run for forced vaccination. Now, there is widespread talk of some sort of proof of vaccination being a requirement for air travel, attendance at sporting event or entry to certain jobs.
Many are appalled by the loss of religious freedom. Three Alberta pastors have been handcuffed and jailed for holding Sunday services. Yes, in Alberta, not North Korea. A ban or severe limitation on gatherings essentially cancelled Christmas and Easter worship. Religious folk and many civil libertarians are horrified at the padlocking of defiant Christian churches as has happened to Pastor Henry Hildebrandt’s in Aylmer and Pastor James Coates’ in Edmonton.
The essential spirit of the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies was captured at a mass protest on a scorching July 1, Canada Day, on Parliament Hill. A sea of Canadian flags and some old Red Ensigns is one section set up a booming chant of “Freedom, Freedom” to be answered by a sea of Quebec Fleur de lys flags and a few flags from the Revolution of 1837 in another section and their chant “liberte, liberte”. — Paul Fromm
groups participating in many rallies is called Hugs Over Masks. In Toronto, a Chinese lady circulates through the crowd offering a tray of her home-baked treats free to fellow “freedom fighters.” Sadly, this elegant lady was handcuffed and arrested on May 8 for being in possession of a megaphone.
The END THE LOCKDOWN rallies are a political protest unseen since World War II. They started in Vancouver in mid-March 2020 The next weekend, they spread to Toronto. Those calling for an end to the crippling lockdown were sniffily dismissed by Premier Ford as “a bunch of yahoos”. Ironically, many of these people had been part of his Ford Nation.
Since then, the rallies have spread right across the country. The remarkable fact about these protests is their regularity and consistency. They occur weekly in cities large and small. Movements in the past have staged mass rallies but not weekly and right across the country. In the late ’60s, the left staged large anti-war demonstrations in major cities opposing the war in Vietnam twice a year. Similarly, in the mid-80s, the left staged large demonstrations against President Reagan’s star wars programme. Although these demonstrations were large, they were not weekly. Other groups have staged large protests but only on occasion like Right to Life’s annual pro-life rally in Ottawa and demonstrations against specific legislation like more stringent gun control.
The consistency and persistence of the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies are remarkable and they have spread and become a weekly occurrence from Kelowna to Penticton to Kamloops to Calgary to Edmonton to Fort McMurray to Saskatoon to Brantford and many other places. These rallies are really like ’60s “happenings.” The word goes out, usually over the Internet and concerned people show up, often with little advance notice and usually with little media attention. For instance, on May 14, over an estimated 50,000 END THE LOCKDOWN supporters gathered in Queen’s Park and heard speakers like Maxime Bernier. The rally and Mr. Bernier’s message went all but uncovered in the mainstream media. That evening, a smaller demonstration estimated at about 5,000 people supporting Palestine had sporadic clashes with a smaller group supporting Israel at Nathan Phillips Square. That was the event that got all the media attention.
Participants hail from a wide range of backgrounds. I have talked to participants who voted Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative or People’s Party in the last election. Mr. Farber, who, I suspect, has never attended an END THE LOCKDOWN rally, alleges participants are dedicated to “an anti-public health agenda aimed at undermining the Canadian economy and the health and well-being of Canadians”.
What unites these people, young and old, working class, middle-class, rural, urban, is a passionate attachment to freedoms they see being vacuumed away in government lockdowns and restrictions. Far from undermining the economy, they want the economy re-opened and the job and business crippling lockdowns ended, perhaps like the state of Florida which is wide open, with businesses open and no enforced mask mandate and an infection rate slightly lower than locked down Ontario.
Some from the start some feared that enforced masking was a dry run for forced vaccination. Now, there is widespread talk of some sort of proof of vaccination being a requirement for air travel, attendance at sporting event or entry to certain jobs.
Many are appalled by the loss of religious freedom. Three Alberta pastors have been handcuffed and jailed for holding Sunday services. Yes, in Alberta, not North Korea. A ban or severe limitation on gatherings essentially cancelled Christmas and Easter worship. Religious folk and many civil libertarians are horrified at the padlocking of defiant Christian churches as has happened to Pastor Henry Hildebrandt in Aylmer and Pastor James Coates in Edmonton.
The essential spirit of the END THE LOCKDOWN rallies was captured at a mass protest on a scorching July 1, Canada Day, on Parliament Hill. A sea of Canadian flags and some old Red Ensigns is one section set up a booming chant of “Freedom, Freedom” to be answered by a sea of Quebec Fleur de lys flags and a few flags from the Revolution of 1837 in another section and their chant “liberte, liberte”. — Paul Fromm
Stand Up to the Mob– The Statue Wreckers & Their Establishment Enablers!
When a mob vandalizes or tears down statues that have been in place for generations of nation-builders, whether statesmen like Sir John A. Macdonald, Father of Confederation and first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, or educators like Egerton Ryerson, one of the chief architects of the Upper Canadian – Ontarian for the hopelessly up-to-date – public school system, back the in days when schools were a credit to their builders rather than a disgrace, this tells us much more about the mob than about the historical figures whose memory they are attacking. It is far easier to tear something down than it is to build something, especially something of lasting benefit. It is also much quicker. What these acts tell us is that the members of these mobs, whether taken individually or collectively, who are howling for the “cancelling” of the memories of men like Macdonald and Ryerson, do not have it in them to achieve a thousandth of what such men accomplished. Driving them down this quick and easy, but ultimately treacherous and deadly, path of desecration and destruction, is the spirit of Envy, which is not mere jealousy, the wish to have what others have, but the hatred of others for being, having, or doing what you do not and cannot be, have, or do yourself. It was traditionally considered among the very worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, second only to Pride. This makes it almost fitting, in a perverse sort of way, that last weekend’s mob assault on the statue of Ryerson at the University that bears his name, took place at the beginning of the month which, to please the alphabet soup people of all the colours of the rainbow, now bears the name of that Sin in addition to the Roman name for the queen of Olympus.
The toppling of the Ryerson statue came at the end of a week in which the Canadian media, evidently tired of the bat flu after a year and a half, found a new dead horse to flog. Late in May, a couple of days after the anniversary of the incident which, after it was distorted and blown out of proportion by the media, sparked last year’s wave of race riots and “Year Zero” Cultural Maoism, and just in time to launch Indigenous History Month, yet another new handle for the month formerly known as June, the Kamloops Indian Band made an announcement. They had hired someone to use some fancy newfangled sonar gizmo to search the grounds of the old Indian Residential School at Kamloops and, lo and behold, they had discovered 215 unmarked graves.
The Canadian mainstream media was quick to label this discovery “shocking”. This speaks extremely poorly about the present state of journalistic integrity in this country. When used as an adjective, the word shocking expresses a negative judgement about that which is so described but it also generally conveys a sense of surprise on the part of the person doing the judging. There was nothing in the Kamloops announcement, however, that ought to have been surprising. It revealed nothing new about the Indian Residential Schools. That there are unmarked graves on the grounds of these schools has been known all along. The fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report is entitled Missing Children and Unmarked Burials. It is 273 pages long and was published in December of 2015. According to this volume the death rate due to such factors as disease – tuberculosis was the big one – and suicide was much higher among aboriginal children at the Residential Schools than among school children in the general population. The TRC attributed this to the inadequacy of government standards and regulations for these schools which fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the provincial education ministries like other schools, as well as inadequate enforcement of such standards and regulations, and inadequate funding. Had the TRC been the impartial body of inquiry it made itself out to be it would also have compared the death rate among Residential School children to that among aboriginal children who remained at home on the reserves. At any rate, according to the TRC Report, unless the families lived nearby or could afford to have the bodies sent to them, they were generally buried in cemeteries at the schools which were abandoned and fell into disuse and decay after the schools were closed. All that this “new discovery” has added to what is already contained in that volume is the location of 215 of these graves. One could be forgiven for thinking that all the progressives in the mainstream Canadian media who have been spinning the Residential School narrative into a wrecking ball to use against Canada and the men who built her are not actually that familiar with the contents of the TRC Report.
The Canada-bashing progressives have been reading all sorts of ridiculous conclusions into the discovery of these graves that the actual evidence in no way bears out. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was hardly an impartial and unbiased body of inquiry. Its end did not seem to be the first noun in its title so much as painting as unflattering a portrait of the Indian Residential Schools, the Canadian churches, and the Canadian government as was possible. Even still, it did not go so far as to accuse the schools of the mass murder of children. The most brazen of the progressive commentators have now been pointing to the discovery of the graves and making that accusation, and their slightly less brazen colleagues have been reporting the story in such a way as to lead their audiences to that conclusion without their outright saying it. This is irresponsible gutter journalism at its worst. The Kamloops band and its sonar technicians have not discovered anything that the TRC Report had not already told us was there, and bodies have not been exhumed, let alone examined for cause of death. Indeed, they did not even discover a “mass grave” as innumerable media commentators have falsely stated, with some continuing to falsely say this despite the band chief having issued an update in which she explicitly stated “This is not a mass grave”. The significance of this is that it shows that the media has been painting the picture of a far more calloused disposal of bodies than the evidence supports or the band claims.
The media, of course, are not acting in bona fide. This time last year, they were using the death of George Floyd to promote a movement that was inciting race riots all across the United States and even throughout the larger Western world. Coinciding with this was a wave of mob attacks on the monuments of a wide assortment of Western nation-builders, institutional founders, statesmen, and other honoured historical figures. The New York Times, the American trash rag of record, had been laying the foundation for this for months by running Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project, a revisionist distortion of American history that interprets everything by viewing it through the lens of slavery, in its Sunday Magazine supplement. What we are seeing up here this year is simply the Canadian left-wing gutter press trying to reproduce its American cousin’s success of last year.
Those who use their influence to support statue-toppling mobs have no business commenting on history whatsoever. By their very actions they demonstrate that they have not learned a fairly basic historical lesson. Movements that seek to tear down a country’s history – her past cannot be torn down, but her history, her “remembered past” to use John Lukacs’ definition, can – never end well but rather in disaster, destruction, and misery for all. The Jacobins attempted this in France in the 1790s when they started history over with their Republic at “Year One”, and endued up with the Reign of Terror. It has been a pretty standard feature of all Communist revolutions since. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, when they took over Cambodia in 1975, declared it to be “Year Zero”. Watch the film “The Killing Fields” or read my friend Reaksa Himm’s memoir The Tears of My Soul to find out what that was like. Anybody who fails to grasp the simple historical fact that these are terrible examples and not ones to be emulated has no business passing judgement on the errors of the historical figures who built countries and institutions, led them through difficult periods, and otherwise did the long and difficult work of construction, enriching future generations, rather than the short and easy work of destruction that can only impoverish them.
There are undoubtedly those who would feel that this comparison of today’s statue-topplers who are now likening our country’s founders to Hitler with the Jacobins, Maoists, Pol Pot and other statue-toppling, country-and-civilization destroyers of the past is unfair. It is entirely appropriate, however. It is one thing to acknowledge that bad things took place at the Indian Residential Schools and to give those who suffered those things a platform and the opportunity to share their story. It is another thing altogether to use those bad things to paint a cartoonish caricature so as to condemn the schools, the churches that administered them, and the country herself, wholesale, and to silence those whose testimony as to their experiences runs contrary to this one-sided, un-nuanced, narrative. It is one thing to acknowledge that admired leaders of the past were human beings and thus full of flaws, or even to point out examples of how they fell short of the standards of their own day or of timeless standards. It is something quite different to use their flaws to discredit and dismiss their tremendous accomplishments and, even worse, to condemn them for failing to hold attitudes that are now all but ubiquitous but which nobody anywhere in the world held until the present generation.
When the so-called Truth and Reconciliation process began – I don’t mean the appointment of the Commission but the proceedings that led to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement which brought about the creation of the Commission, so we are talking about two and a half decades ago – the discussion was primarily about physical and sexual abuse that some of the alumni of the schools had suffered there, over which they had initiated the lawsuits that led to the Settlement. With the creation of the TRC, however, the discussion came to be dominated by people with another very different agenda. Their agenda was to condemn the entire Residential Schools system as a project of “cultural genocide”.
The concept of “cultural genocide” is nonsensical. Genocide, a term coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944, means the murder of a “people”, in the sense of a group with a common ancestry and identity. The Holocaust of World War II is the best known example. The mass murder of Tutsis in Rwanda towards the end of that country’s civil war in 1994 is a more recent example. The concept of “cultural genocide” was thought up by the same man who coined the term. It refers to efforts to destroy a people’s cultural identity without killing the actual people. Since the equation of something that does not involve killing actual people with mass murder ought to be morally repugnant to any thinking person, the concept should have been condemned and rejected from the moment Lemkin first conceived it. Soon after it was conceived, however, the leaders of certain Jewish groups began using it as a club against Christianity. Christianity teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Redeemer prophesied in the Old Testament Who established the promised New Covenant through His death and Resurrection and Who is the only way to God for Jews and Gentiles alike. Christianity’s primary mission from Jesus Christ is evangelism – telling the world the Gospel, the Good News about Who Jesus is and what He has done. While not everybody believes the Gospel when they hear it and it is not our mission to compel anybody to believe, obviously the desired end of evangelism is for everybody to believe. Since rabbinic Judaism has long taught that a Jew who converts to Christianity ceases to be a Jew, the Jewish leaders in question argued that evangelism amounts to cultural genocide – if all the Jews believed the Gospel, there would be no Jews any more. On the basis of this kind of reasoning they began pressuring Christian Churches to change their doctrines and liturgical practices as they pertain to the evangelism of Jews. Sadly, far too many Church leaders proved to be weak in the face of this kind of pressure.
Canada’s Laurentian political class showed a similar lack of backbone when it came to defending our country against the smear that the Residential Schools were designed to wipe out Native Indian cultural identities. Indeed, their attitude throughout the entire “Truth and Reconciliation” process was to accept the blame for whatever accusations were thrown against Canada and to refuse to hold the accusers accountable to even the most basic standards of courtroom justice. Imagine a trial where the judge allows only the prosecutor to call witnesses, denies the defense the right to cross examine, and refuses to allow the defense to make a case. That will give you a picture of what the trial of Canada by the TRC over the Residential Schools was like.
The reality is that had Canada wanted to erase Native Indian cultural identity she would have abolished the reserves, torn up the treaties and declared the Indians to be ordinary citizens like everyone else, insisted that they all live among other Canadians, and that their children go to the same public schools as everybody else. In other words, she would have done the exact opposite of what she actually did. The Canadian government’s policy was clearly to preserve Indian cultural identity, not to eradicate it. Had they wanted to do the latter, residential schools would have been particularly ill-suited to the task. The TRC maintains that the idea was to break Indian cultural identity by taking children away from the cultural influence of their parents. If this was the case one would think the government would have had all Indian children sent to these schools. In actuality, however, in the approximately a century and a half that these schools operated, only a minority of Indian children were sent there. This was a very small minority in the early days of the Dominion when Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the TRC et al seem more interested in vilifying than anyone else, was Prime Minister. The government also ran day schools on the reserves and in those days the government only forced children to go to the residential schools when their parents persistently neglected to send them to the day schools. The Dominion had made it mandatory for all Indian children within a certain age range to attend school – just as the provinces had made it mandatory for all other children within the same age range to attend school. It was much later in Canadian history, after the government decided to make the schools serve the second function of being foster group homes for children removed from unsafe homes by social workers that a majority of Indian children were sent to the residential schools. Even then, the eradication of Indian cultural identity is hardly a reasonable interpretation of the government’s intent.
The TRC, in the absence of serious challenge from either Canada’s political class or the fourth estate, created a narrative indicting our country and its founders for “cultural genocide”, featuring a one-sided caricature of the Indian Residential Schools. Now, after a discovery that adds nothing that was not already contained in the TRC Report, left-wing radicals egged on by the mendacious and meretricious media, have gone far beyond the TRC in their defamatory accusations of murder against the schools and their Pol Potish demands that we “cancel” our country, her history, and her historical figures. It is about time that we stood up to these thugs who in their envy and hatred of those who did what they themselves could never do by building our country wish to tear it all down. It is slightly encouraging that the Conservatives were able to stop the motion by Jimmy Dhaliwal’s Canada-hating socialist party to have Parliament declare the Residential Schools to have been a genocide. I didn’t think they had the kives – the Finnish word for “stones” the bearing of which as a last name by a local reporter brings to mind how the biggest man in Robin Hood’s band of Merry Men was called “Little John” – to do so.
Protesters have been gathering at Queen’s Park in Toronto in front of the legislature for well over a year, and the protest on Saturday, May 15, was the largest showing since the demonstrations began in 2020.
Thousands, maybe even as many as 50,000, took to the park and streets to rally against the continuing lockdowns in Ontario. Neither the demonstrators, nor the residents in Toronto seem to be adhering to the recently-extended ‘Stay-at-Home’ order issued by Premier Doug Ford, as protesters gathered over the weekend for all types of events.
Whether it was pro-Palestine, pro-Israel or anti-lockdown demonstrations, no tickets appeared to be given in Toronto over the weekend for violating the government order. Simply looking around, the average person wasn’t adhering to the ‘rules’ either.
On May 16, 2021 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (when talking about Israel/Palestine protests) mentioned that all have the right to protest; something that provincial orders have contradicted for many months: https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-
However, Canadian politicians have recently been chiming in on pro-freedom demonstrations, with Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi claiming they are “thinly veiled” in “white supremacy.” https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also believes this is part of “extreme right-wing ideology,” connecting such viewpoints due to protesters “brazenly not follow[ing] public-health guidelines,” as he recently told reporters.
The overwhelming response from protesters was that this is likely an attempt to divide while diminishing the true meaning behind the protest.
None of the demonstrators interviewed mentioned they had ever heard any race-related discussions at the events, nor did they believe that to be the thesis of anyone or anything they experienced since attending the get-togethers.
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.
