Tag Archives: Mark Carney

                                                             Throne, Altar, Liberty

Posted on by

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The late Sir Roger Scruton had much to say about the difference between “giving offence” and “taking offence.”  In an interview with Douglas Murray for The Spectator about a half a year before his death, for example, he said:

Remember though, that there’s this great distinction between giving offence and taking offence and we’re living in a culture where people become experts in taking offence even when it hasn’t been given.  And that’s what is taught in gender studies. It teaches young women to take offence at every remark a man might make or even his being there, you know. It’s a wonderful theatrical thing to take offence but it doesn’t lead to any lasting relationships. (1)

The importance of this distinction has to do with more than just gender.  Every form of “identity politics” majors in taking offence.  Identity politics is informed and underlain by the contemporary “morality” that has supplanted traditional moralities, including both the older traditional morality informed by classical ethics and Christian moral theology and the more recent morality of classical liberalism, in the civilization formerly known as Christendom in the post-World War II era.  This is one of the key distinguishing feature between the contemporary “morality” and traditional moralities.  Traditional morality taught you to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to avoid giving offence.  Contemporary morality teaches you to take offence and to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to minimize the likelihood of others taking offence.

The distinction is quite simple.  Allow me to illustrate.  If I were to go up to you and say something to the effect of “You dirty rotten so-and-so, you are ugly and stupid, a bum and a loser, and the biggest jerk who ever lived.  Now listen to me you miserable punk, you dress like a clown and smell like a skunk, your mother is a whore and your father is a drunk” then I would be giving offence.  If, on the other hand, I were to say to you “I listened to your lecture on this-or-that historical event and I don’t like your take on what happened because I think it portrays such-and-such a group in a poor light, bolstering unfair stereotypes, and although I am not a member of that group per se, I am deeply offended by your micro-aggression and think you need to be cancelled” or some such blithering nonsense, I would be taking offence.

Ordinarily, when someone gives offence the offence is intentional, he is deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of the person to whom he is speaking.  To the person who takes offence, however, the intentions of the person from whom he takes offence are irrelevant. 

With regards to the importance of intent it is worth observing that the cultural shift from the traditional morality of avoiding giving offence to the contemporary morality of taking offence, occurred simultaneously with the rise of technocratic managers in both government and private business. (2) Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the laws by which we are governed are subject to King-in-Parliament acting through legislation.  While the form remains in Canada, in the post-World War II era, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have increasingly by-passed the constraints the traditional system placed on their ability to impose new rules on Canadians, by relying more-and-more on civil service agencies acting through regulation instead.  The counterpart to this in the private sector is the increased control of middle level managers operating through Human Resource departments.

The reason this is worth pointing out here is because the traditional Westminster system of legislating by King-in-Parliament was closely allied with the Common Law tradition which includes the principle with regards to criminal culpability that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (a guilty act does not make guilty unless the mind is guilty), that is to say, there needs to be criminal intent for there to be criminal culpability.  HR departments, by contrast, seldom if ever regard intent as an essential component of any of the myriad of made-up offences in the rule books through which they micromanage their employees.  While the parallel is not perfect it is notable.

The other factor that distinguishes giving offence from taking offence is objectivity.  If you give offence to someone by, for example, calling him a horse’s patoot, the offence is objective because it is reasonable to assume that anyone called this would be offended by it.  When someone takes offence that has not been given, however, the offence is largely if not entirely, subjective.  In Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between exegesis and eisegesis.  In both of these words the basic verb means to guide or to lead.  Exegesis adds the prefix for “out” and means to bring out of the text the meaning that is already there in it.  This, of course, is the approved hermeneutical method.  The other one, eisegesis, substitutes the prefix for “in” and means to read into the text the meaning you wish to find there.   Taking offence that has not been given is similar to eisegesis in this regards.

In this, as in so many other areas, contemporary morality is a poor substitute for traditional morality.  Morality informs law and when an inferior morality replaces a superior morality the result will be the introduction and multiplication of bad laws. 

The news media recently learned that the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Blofeld has come to an agreement with the Lower Canadian separatists. (3)   The separatists agreed to support the Liberal Bill C-9, a proposed series of amendments to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to “hate.”  Over the past couple of years, Canadians have become increasingly disturbed and disgusted at a particular type of “protest” that has been popping up all over our country and the wider civilization.  Ostensibly about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, these protests openly embrace not merely the cause of the Palestinians but the organization Hamas, glorify its worst actions, and are filled with violent, revolutionary, rhetoric directed not only against Israel but against our country and Western Civilization as a whole.  Bill C-9 is the Liberals’ proposed “solution” to this problem.  It is typical of the “solutions” put forward by politicians, especially Liberals, to problems that are largely of their own creation, in that it creates new statutory offences and laws where the already existing laws are more than sufficient to handle the situation if they would only be followed and enforced.  Bill C-9 would make preventing access to a place of worship or community centre by means of intimidation – which already violates more than one law – into a distinct “hate” offence.  It would also criminalize the public display of certain symbols.  To gain the support of the separatists, the Liberals agreed to include a further amendment in the bill that would remove the existing provision in Section 319 of the Criminal Code that exempts speech that expresses what the speaker holds in “good faith” based on “a belief in a religious text” from criminal culpability.

To do this would be to make a bad law worse.  What I said about bill C-9’s making of new statutory offences in the previous paragraph applies to all laws about “hate speech.”  Anything prohibited by “hate speech” laws that warrants being prohibited by law was already prohibited by law before there were any “hate” laws.  The most defensible limitation on speech in “hate speech” legislation is the prohibition of incitement.  Incitement is the urging or encouraging of others to commit a criminal act.  If the other person(s) actually commit the criminal act, the person who did the inciting shares in their responsibility and therefore criminal culpability for the act.  It is reasonable, therefore, that criminal incitement be prohibited by law, at least if the incitement is acted on.  Criminal incitement, however, was already against the law before “hate speech” laws were thought up. All “hate speech” laws did was single out a specific type of incitement, as if telling people to commit a crime against person X was much worse than telling people to commit the same crime against person Y, if when telling them to commit the crime against person X, you give the person’s race, sex, religion, whatever, as part of the reason. 

Worse, they expanded the prohibited speech beyond actual incitement.  Actual incitement is explicit.  It involves someone saying, in so many words, that such-and-such a criminal act should be committed.  The concept of “hate speech”, however, treats as the equivalent of actual incitement, speech that portrays groups that supporters of “hate speech” laws think should be protected in such a negative light that someone might be inspired to act criminally against that group.   It is interesting, isn’t it, how the progressive supporters of these kind of laws think that in the case of groups to which they think the law should extend special protection, negative portrayals will inspire people to commit crimes who were not already inclined to do so, whereas in the case of groups they do not think should be specially protected by the law – Christians, rather than Jews or Muslims, whites rather than any other race, men rather than women, heterosexuals rather than homosexuals, actual men and women rather than transsexuals – the non-stop stream of negative rhetoric on the part of progressives themselves, usually far more full of expressions of hate in the literal sense of the word than that which they seek to ban, will have no such effect.  Basically, “hate speech” laws in effect protect groups that progressives feel are entitled to special protection from having their feelings hurt.  Here, the thinking of the contemporary morality with regards to taking offence finds its legal manifestation.

The old laws against actual incitement were justifiable limitations on freedom of speech because they were not there to prevent the circulation of ideas but rather to prevent the encouraging of criminal acts.  “Hate speech” laws are not similarly justifiable.  Narrowing the range of ideas that can be circulated is precisely what those who introduce such legislation have in mind.  Moreover, good laws are few in number, clear and easy to understand, protect people and their property from objective, quantifiable, harm and not from subjective hurt feelings and extend this protection to everyone in the realm and not just to certain groups that progressive political parties think need special protection.  “Hate speech” laws do not meet any of those qualifications but are rather the opposite.  They are the textbook example of bad laws.

After the news was leaked about the deal between the Grits and the Bloc, the apologists for removing the exemption came crawling out of the woodworks.  Unsurprisingly, foremost among them was Marc Miller, (4) whom Blofeld just named Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, replacing Steven Guilbeault who resigned from Cabinet last weekend over Blofeld’s pipeline deal with Alberta.  It was difficult, prior to last weekend, to imagine that replacing eco-extremist Guilbeault could be anything but an improvement, but lo and behold, Blofeld managed the unthinkable.  Miller, a childhood friend of Captain Airhead, belongs to the former prime minister’s innermost circle.  If Blofeld really wants to move his party and the government he leads away from the blighted legacy of his predecessor, replacing one Trudeau-insider with another is not the way to go about it.  To the point at hand, however, Miller has been shooting his mouth off for months about how he considers certain Biblical texts “hateful” and wants to see the religious text exemption for “hate speech” eliminated. (5) 

In a meeting of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which he was at the time the chair, just prior to All Hallows, Miller said “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals.”  This is a nonsensical statement.  The Bible identifies many different acts as sins.  This is not ordinarily interpreted as “hatred”, clear or otherwise, towards those who commit such acts, the late Fred Phelps notwithstanding.  When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not commit adultery”, which act carried the penalty of death under the Mosaic Law, do we understand this to be hatred against adulterers? When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, do we interpret this to be hatred against perjurers?    If identifying someone’s behaviour as sinful is expressing “hatred” against that person, then the Bible could be interpreted as expressing hatred against all mankind when it says “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  That it would be absurd to interpret it this way, however, is generally understood because the text, St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, goes immediately on to say “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”  Far from an expression of hatred towards those who sin, the Scriptures are a message of God’s redeeming love to sinners.  The thought contained in the verse from St. Paul just quoted is also expressed in what is undoubtedly the best-known verse in the Bible “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.’

When his words were immediately understood by several commentators, members of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and provincial ministers as calling for these Scriptural texts, their being read as Scripture lessons in church, and preached on from the pulpit, to be criminalized, Mr. Miller took offence.  All he intended, he maintained, was to say that these texts should not be allowed as defences, in cases of public incitement.  This is how he is now defending the proposed removal of the religious exemption from Section 319.  Note, however, the sleight-of-hand that is at play.  He hopes that those whose suspicions he wishes to allay will understand the public incitement, to which he says sincere belief in these Scriptural texts should not be a defence, to mean someone telling other people that they should commit some kind of violent crime.  If, however, interpreting these Scriptural texts in accordance with traditional Christian orthodoxy as identifying same-sex sexual activity as sinful is itself regarded as an expression of hate, then removing the religious exemption from Section 319 would have precisely the effect that Miller’s opponents say it would have, of opening the door for criminal prosecutions of Christian ministers who faithfully preach on these portions of Scripture.

All one has to do is look at the track record of the Liberal Party since Miller’s lifelong intimate friend Captain Airhead took over as leader in 2013 to realize that Miller should not be trusted to mean merely that the religious defence should be removed from cases of actual, explicit, incitement to violent crime.  One of the first things that Captain Airhead did upon becoming Liberal leader was to ban anyone who held the orthodox Christian view of abortion from running for a seat in the House as a member of the Liberal party.  During Captain Airhead’s premiership, the Liberal government made a lot of noise about combatting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the same time that a wave of arson and other vandalism directed against Christian churches was underway.  Arguably, the Liberal government itself had a hand in inciting that wave.   One of Miller’s Liberal colleagues, John-Paul Danko described the factual reporting of the over 120 churches so attacked as a “conspiracy theory.”  Repeatedly, over the course of the Airhead premiership, the Liberal government promoted as “Canadian values” ideas that were contrary to orthodox Christian moral theology – and, as they discovered to their discomfort, contrary to the traditional morality of other religions as well – and sought through various measures to coerce Christian churches into changing their moral theology to align with progressive values.

So no, we should not believe Mr. Miller that the removal of the religious defence will not lead to a wave of litigation and even criminal charges against churches unwilling to change their orthodox moral theology or to muzzle themselves.

Instead of doing what the Liberals and the Bloc are planning on doing, I propose that the government do the right thing instead.  It should strike Section 319 from the Criminal Code in its entirety and abandon its plans on reintroducing legislation similar to the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill repealing which had gone into effect the year after it received royal assent and the year before the Liberals resumed government.  It is the right thing to do because “hate speech” legislation is by its very nature, fundamentally bad law.  (6) 

Since morality informs law, we will also need to repeal the contemporary new morality that encourages people to take offence over every perceived slight to their identity, real or self-chosen, and reinstate the traditional morality that merely encourages people not to give offence.  This will be more difficult to do because it cannot be accomplished simply by passing or repealing a bill, but it is here at the cultural level rather than at the political and legislative, that the real battle must be waged.

 (1)   https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ full-transcript-douglas-murray-in-conversation-with-roger-scruton/

(2)   Today, due to decades of speculative fiction and the current state of AI development, “technocratic”, probably suggests to most people the idea of machines taking over.  That is not how I am using it here.  I am referring to the fact that the professional managers – government bureaucrats and HR types in the corporate world – considered as a class, are distinguished by the use of language that is “technical” in the sense employed by Michael Oakeshott in the title essay of his Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962) in which he distinguishes “technical” from “traditional” knowledge.

(3)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-bloc-hate-speech-laws-religious-exemptions

(4)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/religion-is-no-excuse-for-hate-carneys-newest-minister-says-of-proposed-removal-of-hate-speech-defence

(5)   https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-mp-reciting-hateful-bible-verses-about-homosexuality-in-public-should-be-illegal/

(6)    Earlier this week, paleo-libertarian editor Lew Rockwell published an article entitled “Why Banning Hate Speech is Evil.” I agree with the premise entirely although I would employ a different line of reasoning to argue for it.  Bans on “hate speech” are attempts to legislate what is in the human heart.  The civil government that attempts to do this, however, exceeds its own jurisdiction and intrudes into that which belongs to God alone.  This is the root of the evil the ancients called tyranny and that is often called totalitarianism in our own day. https://www.lewrockwell.com/ 2025/12/lew-rockwell/why-banning-hate-speech-is-evil.  — Gerry T. Neal

                                                             Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The late Sir Roger Scruton had much to say about the difference between “giving offence” and “taking offence.”  In an interview with Douglas Murray for The Spectator about a half a year before his death, for example, he said:

Remember though, that there’s this great distinction between giving offence and taking offence and we’re living in a culture where people become experts in taking offence even when it hasn’t been given.  And that’s what is taught in gender studies. It teaches young women to take offence at every remark a man might make or even his being there, you know. It’s a wonderful theatrical thing to take offence but it doesn’t lead to any lasting relationships. (1)

The importance of this distinction has to do with more than just gender.  Every form of “identity politics” majors in taking offence.  Identity politics is informed and underlain by the contemporary “morality” that has supplanted traditional moralities, including both the older traditional morality informed by classical ethics and Christian moral theology and the more recent morality of classical liberalism, in the civilization formerly known as Christendom in the post-World War II era.  This is one of the key distinguishing feature between the contemporary “morality” and traditional moralities.  Traditional morality taught you to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to avoid giving offence.  Contemporary morality teaches you to take offence and to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to minimize the likelihood of others taking offence.

The distinction is quite simple.  Allow me to illustrate.  If I were to go up to you and say something to the effect of “You dirty rotten so-and-so, you are ugly and stupid, a bum and a loser, and the biggest jerk who ever lived.  Now listen to me you miserable punk, you dress like a clown and smell like a skunk, your mother is a whore and your father is a drunk” then I would be giving offence.  If, on the other hand, I were to say to you “I listened to your lecture on this-or-that historical event and I don’t like your take on what happened because I think it portrays such-and-such a group in a poor light, bolstering unfair stereotypes, and although I am not a member of that group per se, I am deeply offended by your micro-aggression and think you need to be cancelled” or some such blithering nonsense, I would be taking offence.

Ordinarily, when someone gives offence the offence is intentional, he is deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of the person to whom he is speaking.  To the person who takes offence, however, the intentions of the person from whom he takes offence are irrelevant. 

With regards to the importance of intent it is worth observing that the cultural shift from the traditional morality of avoiding giving offence to the contemporary morality of taking offence, occurred simultaneously with the rise of technocratic managers in both government and private business. (2) Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the laws by which we are governed are subject to King-in-Parliament acting through legislation.  While the form remains in Canada, in the post-World War II era, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have increasingly by-passed the constraints the traditional system placed on their ability to impose new rules on Canadians, by relying more-and-more on civil service agencies acting through regulation instead.  The counterpart to this in the private sector is the increased control of middle level managers operating through Human Resource departments.

The reason this is worth pointing out here is because the traditional Westminster system of legislating by King-in-Parliament was closely allied with the Common Law tradition which includes the principle with regards to criminal culpability that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (a guilty act does not make guilty unless the mind is guilty), that is to say, there needs to be criminal intent for there to be criminal culpability.  HR departments, by contrast, seldom if ever regard intent as an essential component of any of the myriad of made-up offences in the rule books through which they micromanage their employees.  While the parallel is not perfect it is notable.

The other factor that distinguishes giving offence from taking offence is objectivity.  If you give offence to someone by, for example, calling him a horse’s patoot, the offence is objective because it is reasonable to assume that anyone called this would be offended by it.  When someone takes offence that has not been given, however, the offence is largely if not entirely, subjective.  In Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between exegesis and eisegesis.  In both of these words the basic verb means to guide or to lead.  Exegesis adds the prefix for “out” and means to bring out of the text the meaning that is already there in it.  This, of course, is the approved hermeneutical method.  The other one, eisegesis, substitutes the prefix for “in” and means to read into the text the meaning you wish to find there.   Taking offence that has not been given is similar to eisegesis in this regards.

In this, as in so many other areas, contemporary morality is a poor substitute for traditional morality.  Morality informs law and when an inferior morality replaces a superior morality the result will be the introduction and multiplication of bad laws. 

The news media recently learned that the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Blofeld has come to an agreement with the Lower Canadian separatists. (3)   The separatists agreed to support the Liberal Bill C-9, a proposed series of amendments to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to “hate.”  Over the past couple of years, Canadians have become increasingly disturbed and disgusted at a particular type of “protest” that has been popping up all over our country and the wider civilization.  Ostensibly about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, these protests openly embrace not merely the cause of the Palestinians but the organization Hamas, glorify its worst actions, and are filled with violent, revolutionary, rhetoric directed not only against Israel but against our country and Western Civilization as a whole.  Bill C-9 is the Liberals’ proposed “solution” to this problem.  It is typical of the “solutions” put forward by politicians, especially Liberals, to problems that are largely of their own creation, in that it creates new statutory offences and laws where the already existing laws are more than sufficient to handle the situation if they would only be followed and enforced.  Bill C-9 would make preventing access to a place of worship or community centre by means of intimidation – which already violates more than one law – into a distinct “hate” offence.  It would also criminalize the public display of certain symbols.  To gain the support of the separatists, the Liberals agreed to include a further amendment in the bill that would remove the existing provision in Section 319 of the Criminal Code that exempts speech that expresses what the speaker holds in “good faith” based on “a belief in a religious text” from criminal culpability.

To do this would be to make a bad law worse.  What I said about bill C-9’s making of new statutory offences in the previous paragraph applies to all laws about “hate speech.”  Anything prohibited by “hate speech” laws that warrants being prohibited by law was already prohibited by law before there were any “hate” laws.  The most defensible limitation on speech in “hate speech” legislation is the prohibition of incitement.  Incitement is the urging or encouraging of others to commit a criminal act.  If the other person(s) actually commit the criminal act, the person who did the inciting shares in their responsibility and therefore criminal culpability for the act.  It is reasonable, therefore, that criminal incitement be prohibited by law, at least if the incitement is acted on.  Criminal incitement, however, was already against the law before “hate speech” laws were thought up. All “hate speech” laws did was single out a specific type of incitement, as if telling people to commit a crime against person X was much worse than telling people to commit the same crime against person Y, if when telling them to commit the crime against person X, you give the person’s race, sex, religion, whatever, as part of the reason. 

Worse, they expanded the prohibited speech beyond actual incitement.  Actual incitement is explicit.  It involves someone saying, in so many words, that such-and-such a criminal act should be committed.  The concept of “hate speech”, however, treats as the equivalent of actual incitement, speech that portrays groups that supporters of “hate speech” laws think should be protected in such a negative light that someone might be inspired to act criminally against that group.   It is interesting, isn’t it, how the progressive supporters of these kind of laws think that in the case of groups to which they think the law should extend special protection, negative portrayals will inspire people to commit crimes who were not already inclined to do so, whereas in the case of groups they do not think should be specially protected by the law – Christians, rather than Jews or Muslims, whites rather than any other race, men rather than women, heterosexuals rather than homosexuals, actual men and women rather than transsexuals – the non-stop stream of negative rhetoric on the part of progressives themselves, usually far more full of expressions of hate in the literal sense of the word than that which they seek to ban, will have no such effect.  Basically, “hate speech” laws in effect protect groups that progressives feel are entitled to special protection from having their feelings hurt.  Here, the thinking of the contemporary morality with regards to taking offence finds its legal manifestation.

The old laws against actual incitement were justifiable limitations on freedom of speech because they were not there to prevent the circulation of ideas but rather to prevent the encouraging of criminal acts.  “Hate speech” laws are not similarly justifiable.  Narrowing the range of ideas that can be circulated is precisely what those who introduce such legislation have in mind.  Moreover, good laws are few in number, clear and easy to understand, protect people and their property from objective, quantifiable, harm and not from subjective hurt feelings and extend this protection to everyone in the realm and not just to certain groups that progressive political parties think need special protection.  “Hate speech” laws do not meet any of those qualifications but are rather the opposite.  They are the textbook example of bad laws.

After the news was leaked about the deal between the Grits and the Bloc, the apologists for removing the exemption came crawling out of the woodworks.  Unsurprisingly, foremost among them was Marc Miller, (4) whom Blofeld just named Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, replacing Steven Guilbeault who resigned from Cabinet last weekend over Blofeld’s pipeline deal with Alberta.  It was difficult, prior to last weekend, to imagine that replacing eco-extremist Guilbeault could be anything but an improvement, but lo and behold, Blofeld managed the unthinkable.  Miller, a childhood friend of Captain Airhead, belongs to the former prime minister’s innermost circle.  If Blofeld really wants to move his party and the government he leads away from the blighted legacy of his predecessor, replacing one Trudeau-insider with another is not the way to go about it.  To the point at hand, however, Miller has been shooting his mouth off for months about how he considers certain Biblical texts “hateful” and wants to see the religious text exemption for “hate speech” eliminated. (5) 

In a meeting of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which he was at the time the chair, just prior to All Hallows, Miller said “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals.”  This is a nonsensical statement.  The Bible identifies many different acts as sins.  This is not ordinarily interpreted as “hatred”, clear or otherwise, towards those who commit such acts, the late Fred Phelps notwithstanding.  When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not commit adultery”, which act carried the penalty of death under the Mosaic Law, do we understand this to be hatred against adulterers? When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, do we interpret this to be hatred against perjurers?    If identifying someone’s behaviour as sinful is expressing “hatred” against that person, then the Bible could be interpreted as expressing hatred against all mankind when it says “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  That it would be absurd to interpret it this way, however, is generally understood because the text, St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, goes immediately on to say “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”  Far from an expression of hatred towards those who sin, the Scriptures are a message of God’s redeeming love to sinners.  The thought contained in the verse from St. Paul just quoted is also expressed in what is undoubtedly the best-known verse in the Bible “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.’

When his words were immediately understood by several commentators, members of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and provincial ministers as calling for these Scriptural texts, their being read as Scripture lessons in church, and preached on from the pulpit, to be criminalized, Mr. Miller took offence.  All he intended, he maintained, was to say that these texts should not be allowed as defences, in cases of public incitement.  This is how he is now defending the proposed removal of the religious exemption from Section 319.  Note, however, the sleight-of-hand that is at play.  He hopes that those whose suspicions he wishes to allay will understand the public incitement, to which he says sincere belief in these Scriptural texts should not be a defence, to mean someone telling other people that they should commit some kind of violent crime.  If, however, interpreting these Scriptural texts in accordance with traditional Christian orthodoxy as identifying same-sex sexual activity as sinful is itself regarded as an expression of hate, then removing the religious exemption from Section 319 would have precisely the effect that Miller’s opponents say it would have, of opening the door for criminal prosecutions of Christian ministers who faithfully preach on these portions of Scripture.

All one has to do is look at the track record of the Liberal Party since Miller’s lifelong intimate friend Captain Airhead took over as leader in 2013 to realize that Miller should not be trusted to mean merely that the religious defence should be removed from cases of actual, explicit, incitement to violent crime.  One of the first things that Captain Airhead did upon becoming Liberal leader was to ban anyone who held the orthodox Christian view of abortion from running for a seat in the House as a member of the Liberal party.  During Captain Airhead’s premiership, the Liberal government made a lot of noise about combatting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the same time that a wave of arson and other vandalism directed against Christian churches was underway.  Arguably, the Liberal government itself had a hand in inciting that wave.   One of Miller’s Liberal colleagues, John-Paul Danko described the factual reporting of the over 120 churches so attacked as a “conspiracy theory.”  Repeatedly, over the course of the Airhead premiership, the Liberal government promoted as “Canadian values” ideas that were contrary to orthodox Christian moral theology – and, as they discovered to their discomfort, contrary to the traditional morality of other religions as well – and sought through various measures to coerce Christian churches into changing their moral theology to align with progressive values.

So no, we should not believe Mr. Miller that the removal of the religious defence will not lead to a wave of litigation and even criminal charges against churches unwilling to change their orthodox moral theology or to muzzle themselves.

Instead of doing what the Liberals and the Bloc are planning on doing, I propose that the government do the right thing instead.  It should strike Section 319 from the Criminal Code in its entirety and abandon its plans on reintroducing legislation similar to the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill repealing which had gone into effect the year after it received royal assent and the year before the Liberals resumed government.  It is the right thing to do because “hate speech” legislation is by its very nature, fundamentally bad law.  (6) 

Since morality informs law, we will also need to repeal the contemporary new morality that encourages people to take offence over every perceived slight to their identity, real or self-chosen, and reinstate the traditional morality that merely encourages people not to give offence.  This will be more difficult to do because it cannot be accomplished simply by passing or repealing a bill, but it is here at the cultural level rather than at the political and legislative, that the real battle must be waged.

 (1)   https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ full-transcript-douglas-murray-in-conversation-with-roger-scruton/

(2)   Today, due to decades of speculative fiction and the current state of AI development, “technocratic”, probably suggests to most people the idea of machines taking over.  That is not how I am using it here.  I am referring to the fact that the professional managers – government bureaucrats and HR types in the corporate world – considered as a class, are distinguished by the use of language that is “technical” in the sense employed by Michael Oakeshott in the title essay of his Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962) in which he distinguishes “technical” from “traditional” knowledge.

(3)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-bloc-hate-speech-laws-religious-exemptions

(4)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/religion-is-no-excuse-for-hate-carneys-newest-minister-says-of-proposed-removal-of-hate-speech-defence

(5)   https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-mp-reciting-hateful-bible-verses-about-homosexuality-in-public-should-be-illegal/

(6)    Earlier this week, paleo-libertarian editor Lew Rockwell published an article entitled “Why Banning Hate Speech is Evil.” I agree with the premise entirely although I would employ a different line of reasoning to argue for it.  Bans on “hate speech” are attempts to legislate what is in the human heart.  The civil government that attempts to do this, however, exceeds its own jurisdiction and intrudes into that which belongs to God alone.  This is the root of the evil the ancients called tyranny and that is often called totalitarianism in our own day. https://www.lewrockwell.com/ 2025/12/lew-rockwell/why-banning-hate-speech-is-evil.  — Gerry T. Neal

State of the Dominion – 2025

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

State of the Dominion – 2025

Seven years ago I entitled my annual essay for our country’s birthday “State of the Dominion – 2018.”  This was during the premiership of Captain Airhead, towards the end of his first term, and I noted that we were in the midst of a third “revolution within the form.”  The first had taken place in the early twentieth century in the premiership of William Lyon Mackenzie King and the second from the mid-1960s to 1982 in the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.  Captain Airhead is finally out of office, although the Liberal Party – the party that each of these men had led – remains in power, under the new leadership of Blofeld.  So it is time to revisit the matter of the state of the Dominion.

The first thing to be observed is that as we emerge from the Airhead premiership Canada is in a far less worse condition than we could have anticipated going into that premiership after the 2015 Dominion Election.  This does not mean that we are emerging unscathed, far from it. 

On the social/moral front alone, the progressive agenda has been horribly advanced.  In 2023 a bill banning “conversion therapy” passed Parliament with unanimous support.  While the expression “conversion therapy” tends to conjure up the image of something similar to the Ludovico Technique from A Clockwork Orange, the bill banning it was worded so broadly that it essentially forbids the offering of counseling to anyone seeking help in conforming their “sexual orientation” and/or “gender identity” to the reality of their biological sex.  Meanwhile, the progressive forces that demanded this ban have insisted that the opposite sort of conversion therapy be provided at the taxpayers’ expense to minors without their parents’ consent.  The opposite sort of conversion therapy is hormone therapy and surgery intended to conform biological sex, at least in appearance, to “gender identity.”

Nor is this the worst example of the advancement of the progressive social/moral agenda in the Airhead years.  That dishonour goes to the aggressive promotion of the culture of death by Captain Airhead.  There was little he could do in the way of making abortion more available in Canada since the status quo going into his premiership was the absence of any legal restrictions due to the failure of Parliament to pass any after the Morgentaler ruling in 1988 struck down the previous laws on the matter.  He could and did waste tax dollars on promoting abortion outside of Canada.  It was the euthanasia side of the culture of death, however, that will be remembered as the darkest part of his legacy.  Captain Airhead became prime minister later in the year that the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code’s prohibition against euthanasia and in the first year of his premiership a bill that outright legalized it passed Parliament.  In the near-decade since, further legislation, policy decisions and court rulings have expanded the assisted suicide program dubbed MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) and like abortion, marketed by those in favour of it as a “health care” choice, extending it far beyond the terminally ill.  In 2021 they got Parliament to pass a bill making it much easier to obtain approval for MAID and extending it to those whom sane people would say are most in need of being protected from it, that is, the mentally ill, although this provision was delayed from coming into effect until the year after next.  In the meantime government agencies that process requests for financial aid from, most notably, military veterans, have recommended MAID as an alternative.

So no, Canada did not emerge from the Airhead era unscathed, and wounds on other fronts than the social/moral could be provided to further illustrate this.  My point, however, is that Captain Airhead did not do all the damage it looked like he was about to do at the beginning of his premiership.  This was not for lack of intent or trying on his part.  It is partly due to the fact that he and his entire circle of associates were grossly incompetent, an affliction not shared by previous revolutionaries such as his own father or William Lyon Mackenzie King.  It is partly due to the fact that the Canada which the Fathers of Confederation bequeathed to us with her ancient Imperial/Commonwealth heritage of parliamentary monarchy and Common Law rights and freedoms, while weakened by these Liberal “revolutions within the form” was still resilient enough to prevent Captain Airhead from doing his worst.  It is partly due to the fact that most Canadians have simply not succumbed to the brain rot that in its most recent form has been dubbed “wokeness” to the extent that Captain Airhead and the progressive commentariat all assumed they had.

The first of these three factors needs nothing in the way of further commentary.   

The second factor may be disputed by neoconservatives (people who call themselves conservatives even though they wish to replace our constitution, traditions, and heritage with those of the United States or something more closely resembling them) who over the last several years have chosen to express their frustration with the Airhead Liberals by taking it out on the country with the claim that “Canada is broken” but these are wrong.  The Fathers of Confederation built a far more resilient country than could be ultimately broken by the likes of Captain Airhead.  I attribute the neoconservative error in about equal parts to their misguided preference for the American system and to the sort of infantile thinking that sees every court ruling, election, or other such public occurrence that does not go one’s way as showing the entire system to be damaged beyond repair, which sort of thinking is by no means limited to neoconservatives.

Of all Captain Airhead’s bad acts, the worst was when he invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 to crush the Freedom Convoy Protest.  Unlike the types of protests he routinely supported, the Freedom Convey did not involve the destruction or defacement of property, public or private, violence, or riotous behaviour in general but was a true peaceful demonstration.  The trucker-protestors converged on Ottawa, parked in the neighbourhood around the government buildings, and basically threw a long, loud, party in the streets.  The protest was entirely justified.  It was in response to the Liberal government’s having introduced new restrictions by removing the exemption to vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers at the time when restrictions were generally being rolled back, showing the government’s determination to milk the absurd bat flu paranoia for as long as they could at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and livelihoods of Canadians.  There was no call for bringing out the biggest weapon the government had at its disposal against the protestors, the brutality with which the government broke up the protest was the sort of thing one would expect from the Chinese or North Korean regimes, and the ongoing legal persecution of the protest organizers is disgusting, to say the least.  Nevertheless, it could have been a lot worse, and all the evidence indicates that Airhead and his cronies intended to go much further.  They were forced to rescind the Emergencies Act, however, because the Senate was about to vote against confirming their having invoked it, which would have made their position much more difficult going into the mandatory inquiry that followed.  As for the inquiry itself, while Justice Rouleau’s finding that the government had met the threshold required for invoking the Act was absurd, Captain Airhead failed in his efforts to turn the inquiry into a trial of the protesters’ actions rather than his own, and when the Federal Court ruled on the same question a year later, they found against the government.

That is what the system working looks like.  It could have and should have worked better.  Ultimately, however, it worked.

That Canadians do not share Captain Airhead’s “woke” views to the extent he always assumed is a large part of the reason why he is no longer prime minister and why the Liberal Party under Blofeld has taken several steps back from aggressive promotion of the “woke” agenda..  Whether this will be permanent or is only temporary while the forces of progressive insanity regroup remains to be seen, but for now at least, the Liberal government is focusing on matters that appeal to a wider base among Canadians than the far left fringe.  That something like this would happen sooner or later was inevitable because an ideological agenda based on maximizing every type of diversity except diversity of thought is unsustainable.  Towards the end of the Airhead premiership, the left’s efforts to maximize diversity in the realm of sex and gender were undermined by its simultaneous efforts to maximize diversity in the realm of culture and race.  That this would happen was entirely predictable because the only way to maximize diversity of culture and race in a Western society is by increasing the number of people whose culture has not been so transformed by Modern liberalism as to make it supportive of maximizing sex/gender diversity.  Eventually the foreseeable clash occurred and a sizeable portion of Canadians realized that Captain Airhead was pushing diversity too far in both of these areas.

For the immediately foreseeable future, it is likely that immigration levels will remain higher than they ought to be but will cease to resemble overt efforts to make Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints into a reality.  Promotion of the alphabet soup agenda will probably continue but it will be much lower key than under Captain Airhead.  That this is the case is evident in the fact that the abuse of the sign of God’s covenant with Noah was a lot less conspicuous last month than in the “month formerly known as June” in previous years.  The same will be more or less true in other areas where Captain Airhead pushed his agenda far beyond what the general public was willing to support him in.

In conclusion, while Canada should be in a much better condition than she actually is, she is far better off after a decade of Captain Airhead than could possibly have been anticipated. 

Happy Dominion Day! — Gerry T. Neal

God Save the King!

Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 12:30 AM

The Legacy Media is Betraying Canadian

Posted on by
The Legacy Media is Betraying Canadians
Liberal governments have never been reluctant to spend taxpayers’ money to advance their policies or the party itself. This has never been more blatant than in its policy to provide generous funding to the legacy media as well as funding to favoured journalists directly. To keep this money flowing into their pockets, journalists and media respond to this largess by writing favourably and uncritically about the Liberal party and its policies. The Liberals, of course do not portray this funding for what it is, namely, bribery. Instead, they describe this funding in glowing, uplifting terms. For example, Finance Minister Bill Morneau (2015-2020) stated:
“A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by providing them with the information they need to make sound decisions on important issues.” He further stated that government-funded media would “provide Canadians with reliable and informed journalism.”



Alarmingly, the Liberals fund:
The Canada Periodical Fund ($86 million) projected for 2024-2025 for print magazines and community newspapers which includes a new Changing Narrative Fund which supports “diverse communities and organizations, including Indigenous, Black, racialized, ethno-religious minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ and persons with disabilities” who will “have their stories, experiences and perspectives better represented….”

Further, the Journalism Labour Tax Credit ($65 million), provides a salary subsidy of 35% capped at $85,000 for eligible media organizations. Other subsidies from Google’s Online News Act agreement add an estimated $18,000 per journalist. In addition to this federal generosity, some provinces provide additional tax credits which in some cases can lead to state coverage of 100% of a journalist’s salary.

There are two other government programs contributing to the Changing Narrative Fund: Canada Media Fund, ($154 million for television, wireless devices and Internet), and Local Journalism Initiative ($19 million for aids in hiring journalists to produce content for “underserved communities”).

The CBC No discussion of government grants to legacy media would be complete without mentioning one of Mark Carney’s first decisions after being elected Prime Minister. Building upon the corruption first introduced by Justin Trudeau, Carney gave a further grant of $150 million to the CBC in addition to its annual taxpayer funding of $1.4 billion (2024-2025). Consequently, the CBC is an adoring disciple of Carney. It no longer employs real journalists but puppets prostrating themselves at Carney’s feet. The CBC is not a source of news but is a propaganda machine for the government and the Liberal Party. Is it any wonder then that in 2023, the CBC reported that 96.6% of TV-viewing Canadians do not watch CBC’s prime-time programming?

Legacy Media Keeps Missing the Stories
Taxpayer funding costing billions of dollars in annual subsidies has NOT produced “a strong and independent media” from which Canadians could obtain “reliable and informed journalism” as stated by former Finance Minister Morneau.  Just the opposite has occurred. As a result, it has never been more important to monitor, question and doubt legacy media reporting, especially on matters of government policy and the integrity of our political classes.
For those paying attention, there is now abundant evidence that the legacy media is betraying Canadians by providing biased news coverage and failing to empower “citizens by providing them with the information they need to make sound decisions on important issues.” In doing so, the legacy media is actively misinforming Canadians. Incidentally, knowingly spreading false information intended to do harm is a criminal offence under s. 372 of the Criminal Code.

Hard Evidence of Legacy Media Betrayal
With the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, a recent study commissioned by the independent multimedia outlet Juno News, recorded significant media bias during the 2025 election cycle. Using ChatGPT, the AI search engine graded and scored every article, editorial comment and television segment, and came up with revealing statistics on the coverage of Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre during the 36-day election campaign ending April 28, 2025.

The most serious offenders were found to be The Globe and Mail which boasts that it provides “the most authoritative news” and is “trusted Canadian journalism;” followed by CBC News which vaunts its commitment to “accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and integrity;” followed by CTV News which claims “trusted reporting” on national and international news.


The study’s Bias Scoreboard resulted in the following: The Globe and Mail: Carney +9, Poilievre -15 CBC News:                              Carney +5, Poilievre -11 CTV News:                              Carney +3, Poilievre – 9
The Tilt Scoreboard measurements were: The Globe and Mail:                Tilt 1-2 (heavily pro-Carney) CBC News:                              Tilt 2-3 (heavily pro-Carney) CTV News:                              Tilt ~3 (pro-Carney)
According to the Juno News article “The legacy media is lying to us.  Now we have proof.” Carney received “across the board praise and compliments” while Conservative leader, Poilievre received “significant negative coverage” of his policies, strategies and communications style.
During the election campaign, Canadians who consumed exclusively government funded reporting, were deprived of a wider spectrum of opinion and were corralled into Liberal friendly news narratives, which contributed to the election of Mark Carney as Prime Minister.

Mark Carney’s Permanent Media Honeymoon
Now that the election is over, Carney continues to float on a cloud of uncritical adulation by the legacy media. Canadians are now experiencing media coverage which provides Carney with a permanent honeymoon. The taxpayer funded media is consistently portraying Carney as a hardworking, earnest warrior charging on his white horse across the country, here and there, solving Canada’s problems. It continues to cover up for him. Behind the scenes, however, Carney is fundamentally changing Canada to fit his own left-wing extremist beliefs. The legacy media’s coverup of Carney includes the following:
Overspending
During the election, Carney sold Canadians on the idea that he was different from Justin Trudeau. This statement was based on his economic background, that would enable him to solve Canada’s failing economy. Since Trudeau first became Prime Minister in 2015, he doubled the government’s debt to about $1.3 trillion dollars. Although Carney will not be releasing a budget until the fall, the Liberal platform indicates that it will add another $225 billion to the debt over the next four years. The federal government released its main spending plan, formerly known as the Main Estimates, providing evidence that Carney intends to go on a spending spree. Spending for 2025-26 will increase to $488 billion – 8.4% higher than last year’s Trudeau Main Estimates. Spending increases occur in about 80% of federal departments, with agencies increasing by more than 20% over last year’s estimates.

Intensifying Ties with Communist China and the Leftist European Union
Carney is intensifying efforts to strengthen ties with communist China and the European Union, and trying to loosen Canada’s natural trade ties with the U.S. By doing so, he is ignoring the fact that Communist China has been proven to: interfere in Canadian elections; is undermining Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic; has stolen critical information from Canadian universities and laboratories; has bought and controls Canada’s natural resources; and has established fentanyl drug labs in BC and is trafficking in these drugs both in the US and Canada, the proceeds being laundered through our national banks.
Despite this reality, Carney is trying intensely to move Canada’s trade from the US by ignoring the fact that the Canadian economy is structurally tied to the US economy. Canada’s infrastructure has been designed to support trade through railways, trucking routes, and pipelines. Europe and Asia cannot replace the accessibility or scale of the US market. Additionally, the economy is closely aligned with the US dollar, and a major pivot would expose Canada to currency volatility. Canada may strengthen ties with other nations, but it cannot write off its top trading partner, the United States.

Adopting Muslim Values
On June 6, 2025, the anniversary of Canada’s brave soldiers sacrificing their lives on Juno Beach in Normandy in 1944, Carney chose to attend a Muslim celebration called the Eid Ala-Adna, hosted by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). During his speech Carney said, “Muslim values are Canadian values”, and that all Canadians must come together to support them. By this statement Carney has ignored the fact that Canada was founded on Christian values and principles, not those of Islam. One wonders also whether Carney’s support of Muslim values includes their hatred of Jews, a desire to vanquish Israel, clogging up Canadian streets with protests denouncing Jews, the burning of synagogues, polygamy, child marriages and the subjection of women.
In the audience at the Muslim celebration, some participants were wearing Palestinian keffiyehs. After Carney left the stage, chants of free Palestine could be heard in the audience before a livestream video cut out.

Federal Summer Jobs Program


The Federal Summer Jobs program which, under the Liberals, refuses to fund Christians who are pro-life and pro-family, is currently funding left-wing controversial Islamic organizations, even though the beliefs of these organizations are on the fringes of Canadian life. Regardless, The Muslim Association of Canada has become a major beneficiary of the Canadian Summer Jobs Program, with several of its centers across the country approved for funding. In addition, the MAC has 69 job openings posted on the government’s website for several camp counsellors and office positions. Yet in a 2021 audit, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) recommended that MAC have its charitable status revoked on the basis that some of its directors and employers were involved with the HAMAS support network. The MAC recently hosted Sami Hamdi at their Mississauga Convention, who publicly stated that the October 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 and abduction of 240 Israeli by Hamas should be celebrated as a victory by Palestinians. Despite this, in 2023, the MAC received nearly $6 million in government funding, thousands of which came through the Summer Jobs Program.


Pipelines
Carney refuses to support a new pipeline to get Alberta’s oil and gas to tidewater. He has also refused to repeal Trudeau’s insane Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Bill C-48) which effected a West Coast tanker ban, and the Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act (Bill C-69) which prevent new energy projects from being undertaken. Yet on the other hand, Carney is pushing through Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, which are supposed to encourage new projects of national importance (to be determined, of course, by Carney). This troubling contradiction has not been raised by the legacy media.
There has not been a murmur of criticism by the legacy media about any of these deplorable actions and statements by Carney.

Why is the Legacy Media Silent?
It is easy to understand why Carney is committing our country to these unsavory undertakings: Carney is totally and utterly a left-wing, globalist central planner who wants Canada to follow his own personal left-wing globalist agenda, which includes adopting policies in support of Palestine over Israel, climate change, and global control of resources.  Moreover, as a practical matter, with Muslims now comprising 4.9% of the Canadian population—and growing, and whereas the Jewish population is less than 1%, Carney wants the Muslim votes and is willing to pay the price regardless of what Canadians think about it.
The Legacy Media’s silence is just as easy to understand when one considers three factors: first, of course, is money. Legacy Media is being paid by the taxpayer, via the government, not to provide objective, critical reportage on the latest government foibles, but to publish a narrative that accords with government policies; second, Legacy Media by and large not only operates within the same Leftist world view as the political/bureaucratic elites, but are also themselves members or would be members of that elite, so in a very real sense, Legacy Media sees nothing inherently wrong or problematic with the government’s progressive narrative; and third, Legacy Media lacks the intellectual acumen to objectively report on the major issues of the day not only because of the complexity of most issues, but because the Legacy Media lacks historical perspective, critical thinking-skills and the moral courage to tell the truth. It is as simple and complex as that.
Parliamentary democracy and Responsible Government “work”, to the extent that they do, due in no small part to Freedom of the Press. A media dependent upon government handouts for its survival is incompatible with a “free and democratic society” which is why every Canadian should be concerned and appalled by the current state of affairs.

Bill C-2. Mark Carney Will Impose the Surveillance State

Posted on by
Bill C-2. Mark Carney Will Impose the Surveillance State The Evolution of Canada’s Wire Tapping: Bill C-2 – the Surveillance State Sheldon Yakiwchuk Jun 5  


READ IN APP   Remember when the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) secretly tracked 33 million Canadians’ cellphone data during COVID? That’s not conspiracy…it’s fact, confirmed in a 2023 investigation by the Privacy Commissioner. They tracked your location. Your movement. Your behaviour. Despite claiming not to have done this exact thing… Welp…things are really heating up fast now. You should check out Bill C-2, that passed first reading, yesterday…where the Carney Liberals are preparing to track every Canadian using any communication device capable of sending or receiving data. Not just during an Emergency…whenever they feel like they can get a judge to approve. That’s not just your phone it includes: Your smart TV; Your router; Your car; Your watch; Your fridge, stove, washer and dryer; Your security systems; Bluetooth headsets and speakers… If it talks through what they deem as telecommunications, they’ll make it talk to them. They couldn’t possibly listen to all of this though, you say? Remember the Rush on Government funded AI? What do you think that’s all about? Solving Climate change or world hunger? Nope! With the use of AI, every single word, phrase, photo, and symbol you share can and will be analyzed. Free AI is already trained to: Flag “key phrases” like anti-government sentiments or vaccine hesitancy Scan images and videos to identify locations, people, logos, and even screen content Interpret emoji-coded messages — like during COVID, when people used 🥕 (“carrot”) instead of saying “jab” If you think you’re being clever, subtle, or sneaky, think again. The machines don’t sleep, they don’t miss innuendo, and they don’t forget. And then there’s the Liberal Doctrine of – Shoot First, Ask Questions Never… This is the same government that: Froze Canadians’ bank accounts under the Emergencies Act Had people de-banked without notice, trial, or cause Was ruled unjustified by courts but the damage was already done Now they want real-time access to your private spaces, and automated tools to flag your speech before a judge or officer ever gets involved. This isn’t “security.” This is authoritarianism wrapped in tech-speak. And they’re Not Stopping Criminals… They could’ve used this tech to: Stop auto theft plaguing cities like Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga or Vaughn:

Track wildfire arsonists in Alberta, where the majority of Forest Fires are caused:

Locate church burners, home invaders, or violent offenders:

They didn’t. Because the goal – given their Bail not Jail Legislation – isn’t public safety; it’s public control. You, the tax-paying citizen, are the enemy. Not the arsonist. Not the thief. Not the repeat offender. It’s your voice they fear. Not their crime stats. Want to see how this would become even more terrifying? Pair this surveillance with the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), and what do you get? You can be tracked, flagged, and investigated for what you say online, even before you commit any crime; Your words can be taken out of context; You can be de-platformed, imprisoned, sued, or financially destroyed; You might never even know who your accuser is or what exactly you said that triggered it. In the world they’re building, AI won’t need evidence, it will just need a pattern. And you won’t be able to defend yourself when: Your post was just a joke Your emoji was a reference Your conversation was private Because if this passes, nothing is private. They Created the Crisis at the border and now they’re weaponizing the cure. This government manufactures chaos just to offer control as the solution. They provoked protests, then punished them.
They ignored crime, but surveilled law-abiding Canadians.
They preach safety, but deploy tools of fear and suppression. They will not use these tools to protect you.
They will only use them to monitor, punish, and neutralize you. This Is It, Canada. This Is the Line. AI is already analyzing your speech and online activities; Every device would be a listening post; Even emojis can be used to incriminate you; And all of it would be legal! We’re not slow crawling into Orwell’s 1984, we’re thrusting headlong into it.

Whatcott thoughts on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Cabinet and Alberta’s future

Posted on by

Whatcott thoughts on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Cabinet and Alberta’s future

Dear Friends,

I must say after the election, my expectations of Canada entering an era of prosperity and freedom under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s manifestly unwise leadership was non-existant. In fact my response, like many Albertans was to join the pro-independance Alberta Prosperity Project and advocate for Alberta sovereignty or (my personal preferance) Alberta becoming a 51st state.

One only needs to look at Mark Carney’s family to see his lack of wisdom and evidence of poor leadership. His daughter Sophia at age 13 decided she wanted to “transition” to become a boy and Carney being the leftist he is, obliged and took his daughter to the UK’s discredited Tavistock Clinic and the picture above says it all. Carney’s daughter is now 24 years old and she doesn’t know what she is. Her self declared pronouns are “they/them.” Canada’s national media eager to portray Carney as moderate, brilliant, and the man who alone was competent enough to deal with Trump decided to keep this information off limits to the Canadian voting public.

I believe Carney’s decision to help facilitate his daughter’s so-called transition is pertinent for Canadians. This lack of dedication to reality and Carney’s obvious ignorance of what this means for his daughter’s long term health will undoubtably reflect in poor and ideologically driven decision making in the PMO’s office. Indeed, based on Carney’s choices for cabinet and his early indicators of what he plans for our resource sector, I think Carney’s ideology and detachment from reality is already apparent for those who care to look and pay attention.

“Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:11,12

Here is the Mark Carney government’s own words. The Liberals falsely claim the federal Conservatives would roll back abortion access, but that is factually untrue. Still one can see the Liberals fancy themselves as being more committed to baby killing than the Conservatives. God will not bless Canada until we repent of killing the unborn, the disabled, and many other vulnerable human beings through abortion and euthanasia.

Many Christians abandoned the unborn and other important moral issues and decided getting rid of the Liberals was Canada’s path to salvation. Unfortunately the Conservative candidate Pierre Pollievre was as committed to legalized abortion on demand as Carney is. As it is God did not give those particular Christians their hoped for saviour, Pierre Pollievre. Enough Canadians appear to have voted for Carney and a Liberal government that is fanatically committed to funding abortion and marginalizing the voices of Canadians with traditional values, not to mention a government that remains committed to leaving our national resources in the ground and deficit spending, that we should be looking like a gender queer version of Venezuela with no babies and maybe very few old people, by the time our next election comes around.

“The Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans and bands of the Syrians and bands of the Moabites and bands of the Ammonites, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord that He spoke by His servants the prophets. Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon.“ ….. …… .2 Kings 24:2-4

Anyways, to get a sense of where Canada is heading under Mark Carney, I decided to look at a few of his cabinet picks, rather than listen to any words coming out of his mouth. I believe Mark Carney, just like Justin Trudeau, is a habitual liar and you really can’t believe anything that he says.

Evan Solomon and his actress wife Tammy Quinn poses with Justin Trudeau at a party.

Evan Solomon is the new MP for Toronto Centre (the riding that hosts Toronto’s homosexual district and the notorious unGodly Pride Parade). Solomon is one of a number of prominent Jews appointed by Carney to his inner Cabinet. Solomon is being awarded the newly created portfolio Minister of AI.

Evan Solomon was the host of Power and Politics on CBC back about ten years ago. I listened to Solomon a few times and like everyone on the CBC he was pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, a climate alarmist, pro-gun control, pro-censorship, etc….

Here is a 27 second clip of Evan Solomon promising to fight for transvestites.Poor Evan can’t figure out that men pretending to be women are still men

Anyways, notwithstanding these unassailable (by CBC standards) jounalistic qualities, Evan Solomon managed on getting himself fired by the CBC. Apparently, Evan used the connections he gained by interviewing the rich and powerful as a CBC host, to engage in a profitable side hustle of brokering high end art deals without disclosing what he was doing to his employer. When CBC found out, Evan Solomon was fired. No doubt Mark Carney knows why Solomon was fired as Carney purchased some of the art that Solomon was dealing in when he was a CBC host. Anyways Carney doesn’t seem too bothered with Solomon’s far left views or shady business ethics. Carney appointed him to his Cabinet.

I thought Trudeau’s and Carney’s tolerance of pro-Hamas/anti-Israel rallies in Montreal and Toronto, as well as their commitment to bringing in thousands of unvetted Gazan refugees would cost the Liberals support in Canada’s Jewish community. However, Canada’s Jews have largely chosen to remain loyal to the Liberal Party.

There is one notable exception, that being Roman Baber. Roman is an independant minded Russian Jew, who is a red Tory in some ways.

Roman Baber is his own man, he isn’t fully on my side as he supports killing unborn children, but the red Tories and Liberals hate him too, as he won’t worship at the altar of Sodom or go along with their destructive social engineering policies.

If there was no CHP or pro-life PPC candidate to vote for, I honestly would struggle if I was in Roman’s riding whether to vote for him or not. Roman supports killing pre-born babies, but to his credit unlike most pro-abortion politicians who ignore Campaign Life’s questionaire and refuse to respond; Roman respectfully answered Campaign Life’s questionaire and is honest he supports murdering babies on demand. Of course being honest about supporting baby murder and being respectful to a Canadian pro-life group who wants to let Canadians know where their policians stand on moral issues does not absolve one of moral blameworthiness. But Roman also to his credit is vocally against Wynne’s/Ford’s perverted, pro-sodomite/pro-trans, sex ed curriculum.

Where Roman really shined in my books and where he put himself in a league of earning more respect from me than what I have for many conservative Evangelical Pastors, is the man took an absolutely courageous stand against Premier Ford’s coercive vaccine mandates and lockdowns. In fact Roman got himself demonized by the legacy media and kicked out of the provincial Conservative Party as a result of writing an open letter condemning Ford’s lockdowns. Many Christians knew the lockdowns, mask mandates, and coercive vaccine mandates were wrong, but they went along with it anyways. The pro-abortion Jew, Roman Baber on the other hand stood for freedom when it was unpopular to do so, and at great personal cost to himself.

Roman ran in our federal election in the heavily Jewish and historically Liberal riding of York Centre and to my surprise Roman with his honest and public articulation of actually conservative views with the exception of abortion (though I suspect being a pro-abort helped him in York Centre, especially with the urban Jewish voters), beat the Liberal Jewish Cabinet Minister Ya’ara Saks.

Gregor Robertson in his 50’s with his 30 year old Chinese Communist Party connected ex-girlfriend Wanting Qu

To be honest Evan Solomon seems almost benign compared to Gregor Robertson, the former woke Mayor of Vancouver. If Carney was sincere when he said he wanted to get energy projects built then putting Robertson in his cabinet is a strange choice.

Just like Julie Dabrusin and Steven Guibeault, Gregor Robertson is a long time and vocal enemy of oil sands development and pipelines, at least for Canada. All of the Liberals seem cool with China having pipelines and abundant, cheap energy. Prime Minister Carney himself has investments in pipelines, coal, and natural gas plants in China, United Arab Emerites, India and what not, while calling for Canada’s oil sands and pipelines to be regulated and taxed out of existance in the name of reaching “net zero.” Gregor Robertson used his position as Mayor to relentlessly attack the Kinder Morgan pipeline. As Mayor he also passed regulations to ban the use of natural gas, forcing Vancouver residents and businesses to heat their homes and water with much more expensive electricty.

Robertson claimed he wanted to make Vancouver the “Greenest City in the world.” I doubt he accomplished that. I worked sanitation in Vancouver’s East Side during Gregor’s reign and the actual pollution was appalling. I worked ten hour shifts off of the back of a garbage truck, picking up thousands of needles, garbage, human feces, discarded clothes, etc…. and the area looked as bad when we finished as when we started. The job paid well, but seemed hopeless. Gregor liked it that way. He called Insite, Vancouver’s taxpayer funded “safe” injection site, “crucial to this city.” My garbage truck literally drove behind Insite and they were the source of nearly 100% of the used needles I picked up off the ground and their clients were the source of most of the garbage and human feces we had to pick up.

Gregor did manage on making Vancouver one of the most expensive cities in the world. In addition to making already expensive energy costs more expensive, property taxes went up 141 % when he was mayor. In addition to that Robertson absolutely ignored and enabled a massive money laundering operation in Vancouver as corrupt Chinese business tychoons, communist party officials, and fentanyl traffickers purchased homes and in some cases just left them vacant as a way to park their money. This one act, more than his so-called “green” energy policies and tax and spend economics drove Vancouver homes beyond the reach of the vast majority of Canadians.

Gregor Robertson marching in Vancouver’s Homosexual Shame Parade.

In addition to championing pseudo-environmental policies that would destroy Canada’s resource industry Gregor was also a vocal champion of legalizing hard drugs. It was under Gregor Robertson’s tenure as Mayor that Fentanyl became the number one cause of death for young people in his city, causing more fatalities than homicides, suicides, accidents and natural causes combined. Gregor Robertson refused to consider law enforcement options, nor would he name China as the source of Canada’s opiod epidemic. Gregor advocated legalizing hard drugs and taxpayer funded so-called “harm reduction.”

Strangely, with Gregor’s rather public track record of housing unaffordability, close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, not to mention his opposition to Canadian energy and his advocacy for legalized hard drugs; Carney appointed Gregor Robertson to his cabinet as Minister of Housing.

Julie Dabrusin marching in the Toronto unGodly Pride Parade

Perhaps the biggest indicator Mark Carney is moderate on nothing and is keeping the Liberal Party aligned with the hard left, it would be his decision to make Julie Dabrusin his Minister of Environment and so-called Climate Change.

Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed Julie Dabrusin (L) as Environment Minister and Steven Guilbuilt (R) was moved from Environment to Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

Julie Dabrusin like Evan Solomon is urban, far left, and Jewish. Her voting record as a member of Parliament is terrible. Of course she supports abortion on demand and marches in unGodly Pride parades, but her voting record and advocacy is more radical than that. Dabrusin was a strong advocate for Trudeau’s coercive vaccine mandates, supported using the Emergency Measures Act to crush non-violent Freedom Convoy protesters, voted for Trudeau’s euthanasia program and supported euthanasia for people who did not suffer serious health problems, other than being diagnosed with mental illness. Dabrusin supported Trudeau’s internet censorship bill, so-called hate speech bills, his program legalizing hard drugs in BC, and supported (along with Pollievre) sending mom, dad and the Christian counsellor to prison for the so-called crime of conversion therapy. Dabrusin supported Trudeau’s handgun ban, and is a vocal supporter the her government’s plan to confiscate firearms from lawful gun owners. Dabrusin’s opposition to the oil sands and pipelines is absolutely antithetical to the interests of Alberta and will have a profoundly negative impact on all of Canada’s economy.

This is Julie Dabrusin in 2020 speaking about the need to destroy major oil sands projects and thereby destroy Alberta’s economy. Dabrusin claims she is saving the planet from so-called climate change by opposing oil sands development and pipelines. The reality is Dabrusin and her Liberal government has had zero impact on the world’s climate and they will have no impact on the climate either good or bad under Mark Carney.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s, Dabrusin’s and Guilbeault’s so-called “climate” policies have had a very tangible effect on Alberta’s quality of life and it appears under Mark Carney these pseudo environmentalists will continue to have a profound effect.

Downtown Fort McMurray in 2025.

When I arrived in Fort McMurray in June 2010, I walked into a $120,000 a year bus driving job within one hour of driving into the city limits. I didn’t know anyone, I had no connections. I simply handed my resume’ to Diversified Transportation and pending a drive test and proof of a reasonably clean driver’s abstract, I was hired on the spot to drive workers to and from their jobs in the oil sands.

My story was not unique. Tens of thousands of low income men and women from across Canada, some fresh out of prison with no job skills, others came from parts of Canada suffering from high unemployment, others came highly skilled and/or with post secondary degrees but wanted an even better life for their families; they all came to Fort McMurray and quickly attained middle class or upper class lifestyles for themselves and their families.

When I arrived in Fort McMurray there were no homeless encampaments. There was a homeless shelter downtown. Some locals suffering serious mental health or substance abuse issues found their way there from time to time and single men travelling to Fort McMurray looking for work who were broke would sometimes use the shelter until they got a paycheque, but the place was never full. No one had to remain there for very long if they did not want to. There were lots of work options, even for the marginal. For the extremely marginal who couldn’t or wouldn’t work, there were no waiting lists for subsidized housing back then. I remember a fellow from my church who seemed able bodied enough to me applied for disability and got it and then he applied for a subsidized apartment and got one and was able to move in to it the same week he applied. It seemed the people in charge of subsidized housing in Fort McMurray wanted him badly as a tenant to justify their existance as they had no one else to give the unit to.

After a few years of Liberal “climate policies” the weather more or less remains the same, but the abundant work and generous, easily accessable, government programs are gone. Tent cities have sprung up, long term homelessnes and unemployment is a thing, businesses have vanished, and thousands of people who were once prosperous and who call Fort McMurray their home are now living on the edge.

Dabrusin is a strong advocate of the policies that created this misery in Alberta and Mark Carney has made her his Minister of Environment. Carney’s words during the election are irrelevant, his actions clearly indicate he has no plans to build energy infrastructure. Mark Carney remains committed to speech restrictions, modern economic theory, and net zero. We are to own nothing and be happy or at least own nothing and keep our mouths shut.

“Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
    they are utterly estranged. Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up
    or softened with oil. Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire;
in your very presence foreigners devour your land;
    it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.
And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard,
like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city. If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom,
    and become like Gomorrah.” Isaiah 1:4-9

The Prophet Isaiah prophecied Israel’s destruction at the hands of a foreign army around 750 BC because of their idolatry and sin. Just over a century later the judgment was carried out by the Babylonians. Jerusalem was burned to the ground and those who survived were carried off to captivity just as the prophet warned. Can Canadians learn anything from the prophecies of Isaiah?

I honestly believe we in Alberta and we in Canada got to this place as a result of turning our backs on God. In our state of unbelief, we have embraced quite a long list of practices that are contrary to God’s will for us. Unbelief does not mean an absence of religion. God created us and indeed we are spiritual. Even professed atheists will believe in something, whether it is New Age, Communism, self, or Net Zero. We will hold to something as an article of faith.

Dabrusin, Carney and Solomon may scoff at the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that He sits at the right hand of God and that He will return to judge the living and the dead. I know these claims are true. I can even point to history and ancient source documents written by a Roman historian who was alive when Jesus walked the earth to bolster my belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet, the Carneys, Solomans and Dabrusins of this world will dismiss my belief as nonsense and may even find some of the values formed because my belief in the resurrected Christ to be so obnoxious they would feel the need to pass laws to silence and suppress those values.

Yet, all three of them have faith. I think Dabrusin, like Solomon would describe herself as a non-religious Jew. Mark Carney calls himself Catholic, but his personal life, writings, and political actions seem more agnostic or diestic, rather than explicitly Christian. Mark Carney’s book “Value(s): Building a Better World for All.” references Pope Francis, but does not mention God. Carney supports abortion on demand, gender ideology and globalism. It does not appear that a genuine belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ impacts Carney’s thinking. Neither Carney, nor Dabrusin, nor Solomon seem terribly religious in the traditional sense, yet all three practice religion and their religion has dogmatic articles of faith.

I found this picture of Julie practicing the tenets of a religion practiced by her, Carney, Solomon and likely everyone else in Carney’s cabinet.

Carney, Dabrusin and Solomon believe as an article of faith “trans women are real women.” Unlike Christianity that can make an apologetic based on history and archeology, gender theory is based on absolutely nothing, except the bullying and cancelling of those who choose not to worship at the altar. Their apologetic is little more than the subjective claims of the gender confused that they feel like they are the sex other than what they are born, and spurious claims that we have to believe the claims of this religion or it’s cross dressing practitioners will commit suicide and it will be the unbeliever’s fault.

“Climate change is an existential threat. We all recognize that, and there’s increasing urgency around it.” Mark Carney

Climate alarmism, like gender theory is a religion. The adherents of this religion like to chant “the science is settled” and not a few scientists and academics are adherents to this cult, but the science is far from settled. Those of us who follow this cult closely know much of the “consensus” is coerced. Scientists who dissent are cancelled, they lose their research grants and their careers are ruined. Many of the most apocolyptic claims are fraudulent at worst and are often provably wrong with time.

During the 2003 drought in Alberta I remember a meteorologist on Edmonton CBC showed a map that was yellow from the Rockies to Northern Ontario. She claimed the 2003 drought was evidence of “man made climate change” and if drastic action wasn’t taken immediately she predicted Canada would be a “desert from the Rockies to the Canadian Shield.” The CBC meteorologist’s bold claim caught my attention and I was skeptical. But her prediction stuck with me and I filed it in my mind. A few years later I also filed in my mind the climate cult priestess Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s dire warning in 2019 that the world would end in 12 years due to man made climate change.

I waited the ten years from the summer of 2003 to the summer of 2013. Canada’s carbon dioxide emmissions did not decrease, and the CBC meteorologist’s claim of a permanent desert did not come to pass. In fact I was in south east Saskatchewan during the summer of 2013 (right in the middle of what was supposed to be the meteorologist’s alleged desert) and many of the canola and wheat fields were under water. I looked at one field near Stoughton SK, and two red necks were out in the canola field with a motor boat water skiing. When I turned on CBC Saskatchewan that summer no mention of their meteologist’s apocolyptic prediction of the entire prairies becoming a desert was made, but the widespread and severe flooding was according to CBC “evidence of man made climate change.”

Few know about the East Anglia climate scandal today. The legacy media went into overdrive to downplay the academic misconduct uncovered when hackers leaked the e-mails of climate scientists working in East Anglia in 2009 and ultimately buried the story. The fact is so-called climate scientists were caught manipulating data to make climate change seem worse than what it was and they manipulated data to make warm periods in times past, such as the midieval warm period disappear. Christians should not lie about our faith to gain converts. We don’t have to. We know the power of the Cross can change hearts and minds independant of our manipulation and persuasion. If the East Anglia scientists were so confident in their “settled science,” why did they have to manipulate their data to make their “science” seem more settled?

The fact is climate change and Net Zero is a religion and many Canadians believe it with a religious ferver. Religious belief is not without consequence. False belief can have serious consequences. The belief trans women are real women has real consequences. A vulnerable, homeless, deaf woman in Toronto who was forced to share a room with Christopher Hanbrook who claimed he was a trans woman to get access to the women’s shelter where she resided and who was subsequetly raped by him is a victim of this religious belief.

The climate religion has massive consequences that is affecting the lives of billions of people around the world. The religious tenet that we have to get rid of affordable and reliable energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas) and replace them with expensive and unreliable sources (wind, solar) to save the planet led to a massive blackout in western Europe recently that cost the economies of Spain, Portugal and France billions of dollars in damage, plunged tens of millions of people into darkness, and resulted in the loss of nearly a dozen lives. In spite of this warning sign that Europe needs reliable energy sources to function, the far left Spanish government remains committed to phasing out all of their nuclear and natural gas options and are hell bent to go all in on solar panels and wind turbines. Like true doctrinaire adherents of their religion, the leftist Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez accused “private energy operators” who were warning the government to not close nuclear power plants when no reliable energy alternative is available of causing the black out, rather than considering the obvious problem that their grid is unable to be reliable when it is entirely at the mercy of the fluctuations inherent to wind and sunshine energy production.

Mark Carney, like Pedro Sanchez is a loyal adherent to the religion of net zero. Canadians and Albertans in particular will continue to suffer financially as our God given resources are left in the ground and we are forced to rely on more expensive and less reliable sources of energy to heat our homes and run our economy.

In the near to medium term, I don’t have a positive prognosis for Canada. Zealots of man made ideologies/religions can ignore evidence and cause alot of damage before reassessing their dogmas. At the most extreme Mao murdered tens of millions of his fellow Chinese through completely unnecessary starvation as he expropriated farms, collectivised agriculture and imposed a massive industrialization on his people in the name of his “Great Leap Forward.”

Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan who have a more conservative population and fewer adherents to Mark Carney’s religion can try to mitigate some of the damage inflicted by Ottawa by pursuing greater autonomy. The complete breakup of Canada is a real possibility. In rural areas of Alberta support for separation is running at up to 60%, and the anger and outright hatred towards the federal government is palpable. Support is lower in the big cities of Calgary and Edmonton, but separatists are making inroads. City News Calgary reported a Leger poll showing support for separation is at 30% in the city, which is higher than at any other time since Alberta became a province.

This separatist movement is not something I rejoice about. It is born out of the religious and Malthusian mindsets of Mark Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau, and their contempt for conservative western values. Trudeau never showed magnanimity or even slight concern for the west, in regards to the damage his policies were doing to our way of life. Carney lied during the election and said he would show concern, especially when many eastern pundits realized they need pipelines and energy infrastructure to secure their economic wellbeing.

At one point during the election Carney said in Kelowna he would declare a national emergency, and potentially trample on constitutional rights to insure pipelines are built and Canada becomes an independant energy superpower. A few days later in Quebec, Carney promised a French language radio program he would never impose a pipeline the provincial government didn’t want (the majority of Quebec taxpayers are actually open to a pipeline). Both positions can’t be genuinely held by the man. Clearly his Cabinet picks and his own book and lifetime of work promoting ESG and globalist causes tells us the direction Carney will take in regards to Alberta’s (and indeed all of Canada’s) need for energy and natural resource development. Making a promise that Carney had no intention of keeping was fine to win the election. For the radical left the end justifies the means after all. But this lie might be the last one that will work for Carney in terms of hijacking Canada’s governing intitutions to advance his globalist agenda.

One positive trend I see amongst the freedom and independance movements is an openess to God. The rally I attended in Edmonton opened and closed with prayer. We need prayer now more than ever. An Alberta separation without God will create a utopia no more desirable than Mark Carney’s utopia of a non-binary, net zero, Canada. It would really be nice if the people of Toronto, Ottawa and Vacouver rose up and cast off their woke leaders and came to a realization that freedom of speech, economic freedom, freedom of religion, property rights, and resouce development, were fundamental to Canada’s well being. It would take a miracle for Canada’s urban elites to come to such a realization, but with God such a miracle could happen. If such a miracle did happen the push for separation would likely subside in the west. As it is all indicators are Carney’s government will likely continue to push the country towards energy poverty, massive deficits, and a further erosion of fundamental freedoms. In this scenario Alberta needs to do what it has to do to defend the interests of its own people.

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been His counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to Him
    that He might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.” Romans 11:33-36

To help with my upcoming trip to Ontario to fight a Carney and Dabrusin approved “hate crime” prosecution: https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott

Carney Promises “Emergency Rule” (Just Like COVID To Steal Our Rights?)

Posted on by

Carney Promises “Emergency Rule” (Just Like COVID To Steal Our Rights?)

He has never been voted into any official government position, yet he’s already acting like the king of Canada.

During a recent stop in Kelowna, B.C., Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney tipped his hand to reveal how he would push his ideological agenda.

While addressing the crowd, Carney smugly stated he would use emergency federal government powers to fast-track economic projects to “take on the Americans.”

Watch it for yourself:

WATCH: Carney THREATENS to invoke ‘emergency powers’ as prime minister

Canadians are already intimately familiar with how our government will abuse its emergency powers to get its way. Trudeau did so illegally to crush the Freedom Convoy and freeze bank accounts because people dared to stage a peaceful three-week revolt against COVID mandates.

The central banker is no stranger to endorsing the use of extrajudicial powers during a crisis — in 2022, Carney penned a column characterizing anti-lockdown protests as seditious acts.

What would he propose next? Tariff lockdowns? Climate lockdowns?

And to think this guy could become Canada’s next prime minister without the majority of the country having any say in it.

Yours truly,

Alex Dhaliwal

P.S. Justin Trudeau has announced he will resign as prime minister, but only after the Liberal Party selects a new leader. But why should Canadians wait? Trudeau must call a federal election immediately to face the consequences of his leadership. If you agree, sign our petition at CallTheElection.ca. 

Paul Fromm on the Great Reset & Trudeau’s Plans to Stifle the Internet — Talk Given at Vancouver, July 17, 2021

Posted on by

Paul Fromm on the Great Reset & Trudeau’s Plans to Stifle the Internet — Talk Given at Vancouver, July 17, 2021

PAUL FROMM THE GREAT RESET.jpg

The Post COVID Totalitarian Agenda — Mark Carney’s “Great Reset Dream” for Our Grim Future & Trudeau’s Anti-Free Speech Plans for the Future

* The Great Reset, the conspiratorial architects, Mark Carney and Karl Schwab

* A future of poverty, limited travel, few cars, little heat & less meat

*Trudeau’s imposed silence — Bill C-10(gagging the Internet) & Bill C-36 (preventing serious criticism of privileged minorities online)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZUEeqRICKSO2/