[Sadly, even the good guys are weak. The B.C. Conservative Party grew out of the restrictions of the former provincial Liberals now the BC United Party. Well, divergent thinking has big limits even with these supposed freedom fighters. They nominated COVID craziness critic Dr. Stephen Malthouse, but, as soon as the media hyenas and the high priests of conformity started squawking, they dropped him. He’s much more understanding than we’d be. — Paul Fromm]
BC Doctor Blames Media and ‘Cancel Culture’ for Provincial Conservatives’ Cutting His Candidacy
Cancelled B.C. Conservative Party candidate Stephen Malthouse is blaming the prevalent “cancel culture” amplified by the media for his party’s decision to cut ties with him just hours after announcing his candidacy.
The Denman Island doctor, whose licence was suspended in 2022 for signing mask and vaccine exemptions, said he bears no ill will toward the Conservatives. Instead he is pointing the finger at political rivals and the negative press he received within hours of the Conservative Party of British Columbia announcing his candidacy March 27.
“The media has been weaponized by the current government and they will attack anyone that is challenging them,” Dr. Malthouse said in an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times. “And that is why there was such a vicious attack on me and the party.”
Multiple media outlets and social media users criticized the party for endorsing a candidate that they alleged had spread “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccine both during and after the pandemic.
“The reaction from the media was such that I think it made [the party] decide I was too much of a distraction from the policies that they wanted to move forward,” Dr. Malthouse said.
“I know the optics of what’s happened in the last few days … is that of cancel culture. There is an element of that. But I think what [leader] John Rustad has done is he’s tried to make the best decision possible for the party.”
Related Stories
3/29/2024
The B.C. Conservative Party announced Dr. Malthouse’s candidacy on its website and social media accounts, describing him as a “seasoned family physician” who would be running in the Ladysmith-Oceanside riding. By that evening, all posts related to him had been deleted.
Party president Aisha Estey announced in a March 28 social media post that Dr. Malthouse was no longer a candidate, offering no other explanation than what was in a media statement.
“We are a new party, we have grown at a record pace, but some mistakes are bound to happen,” Ms. Estey said in the statement.
“Unfortunately, we nominated a couple of candidates who ultimately weren’t the right fit for our team. We wish them all the best, and we thank them for putting their name forward.”
Dr. Malthouse says he is disappointed to have been asked to step down, but he understands the party’s reasons.
“My history of speaking out, particularly on the COVID issue” might have caused “confusion about what the party stood for,” he said.
“I was too far out, perhaps, for the majority of voters to understand and to make an informed decision about who to vote for.”
The Epoch Times contacted both the B.C. Conservative Party and the province’s governing NDP for comment but did not receive a reply by publication.
Party Revival in Response to Past Ousters
The B.C. Conservative Party’s revival started after executives of BC United blocked conservative commentator Aaron Gunn’s bid for leadership of the party in the fall of 2021.
Mr. Gunn was attacked by the NDP for expressing views such as denying that Canada has “systemic racism” or is guilty of genocide. He then decided to rebrand the provincial Conservative Party.
In December 2023, Mr. Gunn was nominated as a candidate by the Conservative Party of Canada, running for the North Island-Powell River riding in the next federal election.
The B.C. Conservatives got a boost when then-independent MLA John Rustad crossed the floor to join the Conservatives in February 2023.
Mr. Rustad was kicked out of the B.C. Liberal caucus in 2022 for his views on climate change. He was scolded by B.C. Liberal leader Kevin Falcon for speaking out on behalf of the caucus, saying “politics is a team sport.” The B.C. Liberals have been renamed as BC United since April 2023.
The reprimand and subsequent ousting from the party came after Mr. Rustad reposted a tweet by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.
Mr. Rustad was acclaimed leader of the Conservatives last March.
B.C. Conservative Party leader John Rustad speaks to members of the media during a year-end availability at legislature in Victoria, B.C., on Dec. 6. (The Canadian Press/Chad Hipolito)
Vaccine and Mask Exemptions
Dr. Malthouse, whose family practice has spanned more than four decades, became known during the pandemic for speaking against COVID-19 mandates in the media and for writing vaccine and mask exemptions for patients.
His decision to go against public health orders has cost him dearly. He is currently being investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and his licence was suspended in March of 2022 after being a member of the regulatory body since 1978. The college accused Dr. Malthouse of signing vaccine and mask exemption forms “that he knew included false statements.”
He said his decision to write exemptions was based on his belief as a doctor that all patients deserve the “autonomy” to decide what is best for their own health.
“Masks have been shown in high-quality studies to not prevent transmission of a virus but to increase Co2 levels and reduce oxygen levels and to actually make a Petri dish of bacteria and fungi” against the face, Dr. Malthouse said.
“If someone told me they don’t want to wear a mask … which fit with the science in terms of its safety and efficacy, I would give them an exemption. I felt that there was no choice.”
He had similar sentiments about people being forced to take a vaccine to preserve their livelihood.
“People were being forced against their will to take an experimental vaccine without being informed about its pros and cons,” he said.
“I felt anyone who did not want to take that vaccine had a right not to take it and I was going to help them to protect themselves and their children to the best of my ability. That’s what doctors do.”
Doctors on Tour
The college has also reprimanded Dr. Malthouse for speaking out against the vaccine.
The public notification for his suspension said he “stated medical conclusions absent any objective medical evidence, and provided diagnoses and courses of action potentially harmful to patients; and used his status as a registrant of the college to attempt to circumvent public health orders.”
At least part of the reprimand is linked to Doctors on Tour, an initiative Dr. Malthouse spearheaded with other like-minded doctors in 2021 to get the word out about “the dangers” of the COVID-19 vaccine.
He said his decision to spearhead the tour wasn’t to build his reputation—“it actually had the opposite effect.” He said he and his colleagues were “desperate” to get started because the government was introducing COVID-19 vaccinations for children.
Among the most serious results, he said, were incidents of young people dropping dead on sports fields from myocarditis.
“That’s what we went out to tell people about,” he said. “We felt it had to be done, and as doctors we were well placed to do that. We know how to read the research and how to understand it, and we know how to communicate with patients and with the general populace.”
With more than 45 years of medical experience, he has long had an interest in integrative medicine, an approach to health care that focuses on natural remedies, good nutrition, exercise, and overall wellness.
Part of the message he hoped to deliver was that traditional medicine, in this case a vaccine, wasn’t the answer.
The Doctors on Tour initiative consisted of six visits across three provinces, with the majority of stops in B.C. Meetings were typically held in small-town churches or similar venues, although there were stops in cities like Vancouver and Victoria as well.
Dubbed the “Educate Before You Vaccinate” tour, the stops drew large crowds despite public health orders to social distance and limit gathering sizes, he said, describing attendees as “desperate” for information that wasn’t being filtered through “mainstream media” and politicians.
The first tour was such a success that the doctors followed up with a second called Justice for the Vaccinated to help those dealing with vaccine injuries.
“There were some people that had six people in their family die,” Dr. Malthouse said. “People would come onto the stage and they would start crying and telling their story. And so we tried to give people a voice to speak out to let people know they were not crazy—which is what their doctors were telling them.”
Looking to the Future
As for Dr. Malthouse’s disciplinary hearing, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. tells him its investigation is still ongoing and has postponed the hearing until later this year.
The college declined to comment other than to say that Dr. Malthouse “continues to be suspended from practice.”
Whether his licence is reinstated or not, the fleeting political candidate plans to be active in BC Town Halls 2024, a non-partisan initiative to inform British Columbians about provincial legislation that “violates” their rights.
Health care is just one of the issues discussed at the town halls, but it is a topic that Dr. Malthouse is especially passionate about.
“More than a million citizens here do not have a family doctor, and walk-in clinics are closing,” he said. “Emergency departments are closing, maternity wards are closing, and people can’t get an ambulance. They’re being sent down to the United States for cancer care. Our health-care system is under attack.”
Dr. Malthouse said he will continue to back the party that dropped him and remains open to serving as a health-care adviser as needed.
He applauds the B.C. Conservative Party for its tough stance on safer supply drugs and removing SOGI from schools, as well as its commitment to rehire health care workers who were fired for refusing the vaccine.
“I still think this party has a chance to save this province, because right now it’s being driven into the dirt.” [THE EPOCH TIMES, April 3, 2024]
If the Trudeau-NDP’s Bill C-59 comes into force, I may be the first one prosecuted because I won’t stop telling the truth about the many benefits of Alberta’s oil and gas industry, no matter what crazy laws they pass.
If you haven’t already heard, let me give you some background.
In February, NDP MP Charlie Angus introduced a bill threatening fines and even jail time for people who dared to defend our oil and gas sector. Canadians laughed it off as absurd. But now, through last-minute amendments to Bill C-59, the NDP have sneaked their gag order in through the back door.
With support from the Liberals and Bloc, the Trudeau-NDP are creating an echo chamber where their anti-oil and gas views go unchallenged. This bill is designed to silence people from speaking the truth, allowing eco-radical activists to sue over so-called “misleading environmental benefits.”
It’s utterly ridiculous to muzzle folks who talk publicly about emission reduction alternatives that differ from Steven Guilbeault’s failed carbon tax. The bill has already passed in the House of Commons and is now in the Liberal-dominated Senate, where it is expected to be rubber-stamped.
Let me be clear: Alberta will not comply with this undemocratic Liberal-NDP gag order.
I have not forgotten the insult visited on us at the riot at the Legislature. A mob of urban terrorist counter-protesters ruined the gathering at which speakers were informing the public about the IN-sanity of the SOGI program.
The head of the Criminal justice Branch ignored my letters. Then when I laid criminal charges myself, the Deputy Attorney General stayed my private Information. By no means is this over. I am now preparing for Judicial Review of that ‘stay’. This message is sent to the 30 + people I know, who were there that day, outraged as I was … and still am … by what we experienced. I am gathering witness statements to put in front of a Judge
On February 21st 2024, I went in to the Provincial Court at Victoria and submitted a private Information. The 5 counts are spelled-out below. Justice of the Peace P Braz endorsed my complaint. He then asked me to provide more information for the Crown Counsel. I came back a day later and handed in the 3 letters which I had previously sent to Deputy Attorney General Peter Juk, head of the Prosecution Service. The letters recited the facts, including the transcript of the ZOOM call in which leaders of the labour unions in Canada declared they would DISRUPT DISTURB DEMORALIZE rallies planned by the #1 Million March 4 Children. That transcript is hard evidence of criminal conspiracy to commit indictable offences. Mr Juk never replied.
JP Braz set down the matter to be heard in Court April 17th 2024 to fix a date for the next stage in the process.
After an Information is laId, the Informant appears before that Justice of the Peace, or, a judge of the Provincial Court, for a Process hearing in camera. Meaning : closed to the public. After hearing the complainant and his witnesses, the judge decides if a case has been made out sufficient for it to go ahead to trial. If so, he or she directs the Registrar to put the matter on the Court List.
Over the last 40 years, I have laid a couple dozen private Informations. Out of them, 4 times my complaint did go for a full hearing. A few of them proceeded to trials, out of which came a couple of convictions.
I have been through more than a couple of Process hearings So I know how it goes. Or, how it’s supposed to go. On February 29th 2024 Kimberley Henders Miller Deputy Regional Crown Counsel notified me that she had directed my charges to be ‘stayed’.
the Judicial Review tells the court that I have been denied my right to due process of law. As well, that the Criminal Justice Branch cannot treat this matter fairly because of perceived conflict of interest :ie. that the Prosecution Service is fully entrained in the mind-set of the administration of the day ( the NDP government ) which assumes the mental illness of A-pot-em-no-philia is ‘normal’. So that those of us who assert our political and /or religious opinion out loud, are breaching the Civil Rights Code. Result being : the government agency which ought to prosecute those who carried on a criminal conspiracy to “DISRUPT DESTROY DEMORALIZE” ( as they boasted in their ZOOM call, 2 weeks in advance of the riot ) instead, protects the offenders from accountability at law in order to save the government from embarrassment.
I am asking those of you who were profoundly offended by the riot to prepare a written statement of what you recall happened on the lawn of the Legislature, on September 20th 2023. Your statement can be as long as you like. Then get it to me. It will form part of the Materials to be relied upon in my Petition for Judicial Review.
I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I do not take $$s for legal advice. Feel free to contact me to help you put together a “will say” statement. If you want to, your witness statement can be made in to an Affidavit, then, sworn at the Registry counter for $40. Photographs and/or significant items/ documents can be attached to it as Exhibits in order to get them in as evidence.
What I want is, for a Justice of the Supreme Court to hear me out in a proper Process Hearing. Especially, for witnesses to each take the stand to corroborate my charges. At that stage, the thing is public. Publicity is the soul of Justice
Gordon S Watson May 11th 2024
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Court Identifier 187706-1
CANADA:
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PROVINCE DE LA COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
In the matter of An Act respecting the criminal law RSC 1985 Chapter C-46
Form 2
INFORMATION
This is the Information of / les presents constituent la denonciation de Gordon Stephen Watson, politician, (“the informant” / le denonciateur ) of / de Metchosin British Columbia, hereinafter called the Informant.
Count 1 : The Informant says that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that: on September 16th 2023 via a conference call in which some of its participants were in British Columbia, BC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ; BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; BC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION doing business as BC GEU ; RON HALPIN ; ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; PATTY JARVIS COATES ; CHANDRA–LI PAUL ; VICKI SMALLMAN ; CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS ; YOLANDA B’DACY ; MARTIN REILLY ; EMILY QUAILE ; PETER VEITCH ; CAROLYN EGAN ; ANTHONY MARCO ; MUNIB SJJAD ; DON FRY ; CUPE ONTARIO ; SUSAN GAPKA ; JOHN DOE ; JANE DOE did agree one with another to counsel commission of crimes at places across Canada, particularly, the grounds of the Legislature in Victoria, thus engaging in a conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, to wit, common nuisance contrary to sections 465 and 180 of the Criminal Code.
Count 2 : The Informant says that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that: on September 16th 2023 via a conference call in which some participants were in British Columbia, BC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ;BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; BC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION doing business as BC GEU ; RON HALPIN ; ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; PATTY JARVIS COATES ; CHANDRA–LI PAUL ; VICKI SMALLMAN ; CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS ; YOLANDA B’DACY ; MARTIN REILLY ; EMILY QUAILE ; PETER VEITCH ; CAROLYN EGAN ; ANTHONY MARCO ; MUNIB SJJAD ; DON FRY ; CUPE ONTARIO ; SUSAN GAPKA ; JOHN DOE ; JANE DOE did agree one with another to counsel commission of crimes at places across Canada, particularly, the grounds of the Legislature in Victoria, thus engaging in a conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, to wit, wilfully disturbing or interupting an assemblage of persons met for moral, social or benevolent purpose, contrary to sections 465 and 176 of the Criminal Code.
Count 3 : The Informant says that he believes on reasonable grounds that on September 20th 2023 WINONA WALDRON ; BC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ; BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; BC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION doing business as BC GEU, via their union members, agents and/or employees, did make common nuisance on the grounds of the Legislature in Victoria, and that they did so deliberately to compel him to abstain from his lawful right to participate in the democratic process, contrary to section 180 of the Criminal Code.
Count 4 : The Informant says that he believes on reasonable grounds that on September 20th 2023 WINONA WALDRON ; BC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ; BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; BC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION doing business as BC GEU, via their union members, agents and/or employees, did make common nuisance on the grounds of the Legislature in Victoria, and that they did so deliberately to compel him to abstain from his lawful right to assemble peacefully with other citizens, contrary to section 180 of the Criminal Code.
Count 5 : The Informant says that he believes on reasonable grounds that on September 20th 2023 on the grounds of the Legislature in Victoria WINONA WALDRON ; BC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ; BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR ; BC GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION doing business as BC GEU, via their union members, agents and/or employees ; JOHN DOE ; JANE DOE did intimidate him and others and that aforementioned ACCUSED did so to compel him to abstain from his lawful right to participate in the democratic process, contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code.
Pursuant to section 508 1. (2) of the Criminal Code and/or section 13.1 of the Offence Act ( British Columbia) the Informant states that all matters contained in this Information are true tomy knowledge and belief
Suivant le paragraphse 508.1 (2) du Code criminal et / ou l’article 13. 1 de l’Offence Act (Colombie-Britannique), le denonciateur declare croit vrais, au meileur de sa connaissance, les renseignements contenus dans la denonciation.
_______________Signed by Gordon S Watson _________________________ Signature of Informant / Signature du denonciateur
Dated / Fait le February 21st 2024 A. D.
At Victoria British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique
Process / Acte de procedure ________ confirmed
Signed by P Bray
_______________
A Justice of the Peace in and for the Province of British Columbia / Un juge de paix, dans et pour la province de la Colombie-Britannique
surface mail address : #4 5177 William Head Road Metchosin British Columbia V9C 4H5
VCC (Vaccine Choice Canada) Potluck – Vancouver – Sunday, March 10, – 4:30 – 8:30 pmDate: Sunday March 10th, Time: 4:30 to 8:30 PM
facilities at Mountainview Christian Fellowship 791 East 27th Ave., Vancouver. – (corner of Prince Albert St. and 27th Ave. )
Discussion: on the details and serious consequences of the many BILLS passed by BC’s NDP Legislature.
– Bills 31, 36, 44, 46, 47Bring your favourite dish, – plate/cutlery/drink, ( hopefully washable and not disposal – as we strive to be a ‘no garbage’ community) – seeds and growing supplies – it is approaching pre-seeding time. – books to exchange, – money for community market. – Let me know if you want to reserve space to sell your products. (Queenie) Hope to see you there! Inge
Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley Wants Premier Smith to Expel an MLA From the United Conservative Caucus for Attending Pro-Family Rally
[Alberta has just seen cancel culture at its craziest. The leader of the oppostion NDP has demanded that Premier Danielle Smith expel “Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley said United Conservative Party MLA Jason Stephan (Red Deer-South) should be kicked out of caucus for going to the One Million March for Children.
“Shouldn’t be anywhere near the caucus,” said Notley at a Thursday press conference.
“Long since should have been kicked out.”
One might as what business is it of nosy Notley who sits in another party’s caucus?
“
Stephan said at the One Million March for Children in Red Deer on Wednesday, governments and school boards are making gross mistakes with blanket rules based on rare exceptions, especially when it means keeping secrets from parents.
“It’s a very serious manner for government to interpose themselves between families and children,” said Stephan.
“Parents have a sacred, moral duty to their children that pre-exists government.” – Paul Fromm
Notley demands removal of UCP MLA who spoke at One Million March
Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley said she warned people about the United Conservative Party wanting to take their pensions. Courtesy Rachel Notley/YouTube
Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley said United Conservative Party MLA Jason Stephan (Red Deer-South) should be kicked out of caucus for going to the One Million March for Children.
“Shouldn’t be anywhere near the caucus,” said Notley at a Thursday press conference.
“Long since should have been kicked out.”
Stephan said at the One Million March for Children in Red Deer on Wednesday, governments and school boards are making gross mistakes with blanket rules based on rare exceptions, especially when it means keeping secrets from parents.
“It’s a very serious manner for government to interpose themselves between families and children,” said Stephan.
“Parents have a sacred, moral duty to their children that pre-exists government.”
Notley said Stephan’s removal should “have been the first thing the premier said this morning.”
To all of the sexual minorities in Alberta, she said they are loved, respected and their human rights are as important as everyone else’s. She added there are many people who will fight hard to ensure that never changes.
When she watched a video from a child at one of the rallies making hateful comments, she said it broke her heart. While children are not born with hate in their heart, a person convinced this child to spew hate.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith did not condemn these comments. Notley called it “one of the most profound failures in leadership that I’ve ever seen.”
She concluded by saying this hate must be condemned.
“And the fact that the premier is normalizing it by allowing one of her caucus members to participate in this is appalling,” she said.
Jordan Peterson: Trudeau and the equity tyrants must be stopped
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world Author of the article: Jordan Peterson Published Sep 11, 2023 • Last updated 2 days ago • 9 minute read 1664 Comments
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a press conference during a stopover visit to Singapore on September 8, 2023. (Photo by Roslan RAHMAN / AFP)
Some of those reading this column will know that I have been ordered by the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo “social media re-training” of indeterminate length, as a consequence of expressing my opinions publicly, with the specified outcome of my comprehensive compliance, as judged by my re-educators.
The charges levied against me include re-tweeting a tweet by the Leader of the Official Opposition in Canada (are you listening, “conservatives”?), criticizing Justin Trudeau and a diverse number of his minions, and expressing skepticism about the doom-saying fear-mongering tyranny-promoting chicken-little prognostications of the eco-fascists.
Why should Canadians care? If you’re a miner, and the canary caged next to you asphyxiates, you don’t blame the bird for being there. You notice that the air has become toxic, and you make tracks for the surface. Regulated professionals, subject to the petty tyranny of their overseeing agencies, are now starting to gasp and choke. Them first — you, next.
It’s already true in Canada that lawyers cannot have the reasonable certainty they once had with regard to the outcome of the cases they are pursuing, relying as they once did on precedent and the common or even civil law. Instead, they have to be prepared to be subjected to the opinions of an increasingly activist court, whose members have taken it upon themselves to put forward what is essentially a radical leftist (“progressive”) agenda. It’s true that physicians and teachers are so afraid to say what they think that even the reasonable among them no longer dare to tell the truth to the patients and children they serve. How do I know this? Because they tell me so. And how well do Canadians presume that the professionals they need will serve them, when they have all been cowed into, at best, liars of silence?
And why should Canadians believe in the existence and operation of such an agenda, rather than (comfortingly) passing such suggestions off as the ranting of demented, conspiratorially-minded right wingers, such as myself?
Here are a couple of facts (remember those?) simultaneously indisputable and unpleasant: Our “Minister of the Environment and Climate Change,” Steven Guilbeault, was not only a radical leftist activist, in his previous incarnation, but is now simultaneously savaging the economy of Western Canada, upon whose revenue his home province of Quebec shamefully, ungratefully and resentfully depends upon, while he works directly with the Chinese Communist Party, rulers of a country building more coal plants every year (two a week) than the rest of the world combined; six times more, to be precise.
He is doing that while rumours of CCP influence over the Canadian electoral process abound (!), under the supervision of a prime minister who has explicitly expressed admiration for the efficiency of communist tyranny, who was a friend to the demented tyrant who ran Cuba as his private fiefdom for decades. That would be Fidel Castro, bosom buddy as well as to Trudeau senior, and the same man who told former president Jimmy Carter that he would have sacrificed his whole island paradise to nuclear annihilation by our American allies just to move the Soviet agenda forward.
He is doing that under the rainbow-festooned banner of a “Liberal” party that has moved so far to the left that the hapless socialist NDP has nothing whatsoever left to offer (particularly labouring as they do under Jagmeet Singh, the most hypocritical politician Canada has ever coughed onto dry land. He is an empty suit of designer clothes too incompetent even to have bargained for the cabinet seat that is the going price, on the world market, for a politician’s soul).
He is doing that as part of an administration that is an express supporter of the deadly doctrine of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity, the mask that the wolves of compassion wear while they open the throats of the idiot sheep who think they are supporting all that is good and true. Equity: there’s a basket of snakes. What does equity mean? The useful idiots of the moderate left insist that it’s just a synonym for “equality of opportunity.” Why the new word, then, thinkers on the liberal side?
Equity means something very particular, good Canadians. It means that all economic and social systems that do not produce precise equality of outcomes across all possible measures of human difference (race, ethnicity, sex, “gender,” age, health status, ability, you name it) are to be regarded as “systemically prejudiced” and utterly re-tooled, in a revolutionary manner. What’s wrong with that, you ask, thinking of the excluded and the “marginalized,” in that manner so sympathetic endlessly and conveniently deserving of praise; considering yourself, despite your lack of actual effort on their behalf, a friend of the poor.
Let me ask you a straightforward question: do you own anything? A cell phone, perhaps; maybe a car; possibly even an apartment or house (although that is increasingly unlikely, particularly for young people, in Trudeau’s socialist paradise). Does that not mean that other people (the same marginalized; the same poor) don’t own that phone, that car, that house? Are you not therefore excluding them? The answer to that question, by the way, is “yes.” Of course you’re bloody well excluding them — oppressing them, marginalizing them, with your exclusive access to what you have hypothetically worked to earn.
“Property is theft”: no shortage of barely successful peasants such as yourself have died as a consequence of that cliché. How did societies get themselves to that point? By adopting the doctrine of equity, which is now deemed a mandatory belief by the professional organizations that regulate lawyers, physicians, psychologists, accountants, engineer and teachers (and that is not nearly all) in Canada.
Equity is no different than communism, boys and girls. Wait: let me clarify, as that is an error, but not in the direction you think. It’s far worse than mere communism. Marx had nothing on the post-modernists, who now occupy the universities, and have dramatically expanded upon his dread and murderous vision. Marx viewed oppression as essentially one-dimensional: the proletariat (that’s the poor for those of you who went through Canada’s “education” system and still don’t know even that) were exploited by the “bourgeoisie” (that turns out to be “anyone who owns anything at all”). That has happened forever; that’s all you really need to know about history and human social relationships in general; and it has to stop. By any means necessary.
Hence the hundred million or so deaths at the hands of the compassionate progressives in the 20th century. Of course, that wasn’t real communism.
You can tell, because some people were accidentally left standing.
For the postmodernists whose theories now dominate the academy and, increasingly, the western world, the bitter resentment of Marx was just the beginning. The concept of oppression is now limitlessly multi-dimensional. Everyone has become a victim, because of their height, their weight, their lack of attractiveness or athletic ability, their country of origin, their religious belief, the status of their ancestors.
What’s the problem with that? After all, life is hard, and much is distributed unfairly. Well, when everyone is a victim, everyone also becomes, perforce, an oppressor — and the punishment for that is severe. Maybe you’re a bit fat (victim, victim), but you’re white, or the tan that we now call brown that could become white in a flash. Presto! You’re a perpetrator. Maybe you don’t own a house (victim, victim). But you own a rusty old wreck from the 90s. Compared to those who can only afford a bicycle (perhaps because they’re useless layabouts) you are definitely an oppressor. Perhaps you’re genuinely poor (victim victim), but you’re young. You can be certain that you are then at least afflicted by implicit ageism, and your very youth a mark of at least your unconscious bias and general shameful reprehensibility.
Are you beginning to understand the game? I doubt it. It’s much easier for Canadians to keep their sheep/ostrich-heads firmly in the sand, and assume that anyone pointing out not so much what’s going on but what’s already happened is an extremist, a bigot, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, a Confederate sympathizer (in Canada (!)), a MAGA Republican, hell-bent for God only knows what possible reason on overthrowing Canadian democracy.
As if they bloody well care.
As if they even know where Canada is.
Why am I fighting the college? Probably because I’m stupid, or at least, as a Canadian journalist so famously put it, “the stupid person’s smart person.” Touché. Seriously (although all educators are, perforce, the stupid people’s smart person). But I have plenty of money, and a wife I love, and a family that supports me, and friends that do as well, and the opportunity to live anywhere I want to in the world, and have been informed by those who run other political jurisdictions that they would restore my licence in a heart-beat if the low-level schemers in eternally good-thinking Ontario manage to purloin it, as they probably will. I really don’t need the hassle, to say nothing of the literally tens of thousands of dollars it costs per month to keep the vipers at bay.
The process is the punishment, as those who have successfully weaponized many such deep-state bureaucracies know full well.
I am doing it to bring to the attention of Canadians — and, if not Canadians, whose smug self-complacency is perhaps unparalleled in the world (except maybe in comparison to the Kiwis or the liberal Californians) — then to people elsewhere in the West, increasingly inclined as they are to see what is happening in Canada, just as intelligent miners see their canaries.
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world. As Canada goes, so hope the progressives, the world goes. Thus, the good fight might as well be fought here. I have a son, a daughter-in-law, and grandchildren in this benighted country. My parents live here. My daughter departed for freer lands, and I won’t forgive the current administration for that. Her example is tempting, and I’ve lived in the United States before — but the same problem exists among our neighbours to the south, despite their more extensive commitment to the freedom that has vanished with amazing rapidity in the Great White North.
It is not that freedom of speech is threatened in Canada, by the way, good people. It’s that it’s already pretty much gone — although, God willing, not permanently. The same can be said for freedom of conscience and association. We gave up freedom of mobility under Trudeau, which was the only freedom he could directly threaten, in his attempt to (successfully) divide Canadians, and therefore promptly did.
We still have the freedom to pretend that everything is just as it was 20 or even 10 years ago. But it’s not. The fact that I am being persecuted for criticizing the prime minister, for passing on the opinions of Pierre Poilievre, and for doubting the opinions of that veritable traitor, Steven Guilbeault, is a primary indication of that. My case would not be attracting the international attention that it is — as is the prosecution of the Trucker Convoy leaders, whose protest was widely admired outside this country — if that was not the case.
Why should you care? It’s not about me, folks. I have options.
Antisemitism charges upend Ontario byelection race in NDP stronghold
It was expected to be a smooth cruise to victory in the NDP stronghold of Hamilton Centre but the campaign has been buffeted by allegations of antisemitism.
Rob Ferguson
By Rob FergusonQueen’s Park Bureau
Sun., March 12, 2023timer4 min. read
updateArticle was updated 3 hrs ago
HAMILTON — It was expected to be a smooth cruise to victory in a riding staunchly New Democrat for almost two decades under former party leader Andrea Horwath, who quit last year to become mayor of Steeltown.
But accusations of antisemitism against NDP candidate Sarah Jama — which she denies — are buffeting the campaign in Thursday’s Hamilton Centre byelection, putting the disability activist and the party’s newly minted leader Marit Stiles on the defensive.
B’nai Brith issued a statement Monday calling Jama “a radical activist who has been associated with groups that have frequently targeted Israel,” including the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, and urged Stiles to drop her as a candidate.
Jama acknowledged her own “messy history around anti-racism” during a candidates’ debate broadcast on local cable TV the next evening, but said “nothing has been called out in terms of things that I’ve said.”
That history includes ties to Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights during her student activist days at McMaster University. The group has called for a Palestinian state “from the (Jordan) river to the sea” — often interpreted as erasing the state of Israel.
“Me standing up for Palestinian human rights … cannot be conflated with antisemitism,” the founder of the Ontario Disability Justice Network added in an exchange that followed a question from a viewer.
“I’m really against antisemitism in our communities, but I’m also for human rights, and that includes the rights of everybody, whether it’s Black people … Indigenous people in our communities and Palestinian people,” said Jama, 28, who campaigns in a power chair because she cannot walk after being born prematurely with cerebral palsy.
“Being disabled gives me another lens of compassion. It’s one thing to talk about supporting vulnerable community members, but it’s another thing to share in those experiences.”
As part of her activist efforts, Jama was given a $100,000 ticket — and ripped it up — at a 2020 city hall protest in support of homeless people that violated COVID-19 stay-at-home laws, seemingly at odds with frequent New Democrat calls for Premier Doug Ford’s government to maintain tight restrictions to limit spread of the virus. The charges were later dropped.
Jama was acclaimed the NDP candidate in November after running unopposed for the nomination.
Stiles, whose New Democrats rebuked MPP Joel Harden (Ottawa Centre) last fall for antisemitic remarks before she became leader, fielded questions on Jama for three straight days at the legislature — with a nod to her “messy history” remark.
“When you’re at a rally, and we’ve all found ourselves in these situations where you really can’t control what somebody is doing over here and over there, you learn from that, right?” Stiles told reporters.
“Sarah Jama is a well-known human rights activist who has always stood up against hate, antisemitism and racism and I look forward to welcoming her at Queen’s Park.”
Liberal candidate Deirdre Pike, a training facilitator in the LGBTQ community and a former social justice planner in her second run at the riding after losing to Horwath in the 2018 provincial election, said Jama needs to do a better job “clearing the air.”
“There is a problem when respectable organizations like B’nai Brith are calling you out,” added the 60-year-old who got a boost going door-to-door when 1,500 Liberals gathered in Hamilton last weekend to chart a course for picking a new leader.
“Solutions to Israel need to come through diplomatic and negotiated solutions, not through, you know, extreme groups that use phrases that can be quite triggering.”
At a time when Premier Doug Ford is facing criticism over opening the Greenbelt, a lack of affordable housing and a crisis in health care, the challenge is that the byelection campaign is garnering little attention, said McMaster University political scientist Peter Graefe.
“I don’t think people are really talking about it,” he told the Star. “Locally, it’s not much of a story but the parties are trying to use this as provincial messaging.”
Interim Liberal Leader John Fraser — whose party has eight MPPs at Queen’s Park compared to the New Democrats with 30 — said concerns about Jama’s candidacy are key to the tone Stiles is striking for the NDP in the wake of the Harden controversy in November.
“It’s a test of leadership.” he told reporters at Queen’s Park, urging Stiles to drop Jama. “Sometimes doing the right thing is really, really hard.”
Harden was forced to apologize by former NDP interim leader Peter Tabuns for remarks at the August 2021 Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine.
The Ottawa MPP said he has “asked many questions of Jewish neighbours here about how much longer we should put up with this … the single greatest threat, the single greatest origin of violence in the Middle East, it is unquestionably the state of Israel.”
Tabuns told reporters he was “very angry” at Harden’s “hurtful” comments about confronting Jewish neighbours over actions by the state of Israel, a tactic Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre president Michael Levitt called “textbook antisemitism.”
Progressive Conservative candidate Pete Wiesner, 47, who skipped the cable debate to campaign in-person with voters, said the Jama situation is “certainly in people’s decision-making process now.”
On leave from his job as a Hamilton police sergeant in the crisis response branch, which deals with marginalized communities like the homeless, Wiesner is hoping to build on Ford’s outreach to labour that helped the PCs win additional seats in the June provincial election, including two in the former NDP stronghold of Windsor.
PC candidates finished a distant second in the riding in the last two provincial elections, with Liberals in third place and Greens in fourth.
Ten candidates are running in Thursday’s vote, according to Elections Ontario.
Today Justice Paul Rouleau released his verdict on Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act to violently crush the Freedom Convoy one year ago.
Rouleau concluded that Trudeau’s use of the Act was justified.
In a delirious statement, he claims that it was reasonable to believe that this peaceful and joyful protest posed “a threat to the security of Canada”!
I have to say, I am profoundly disappointed, but not surprised.
Justice Rouleau was hand-picked by Trudeau to oversee the inquiry. We can’t forget that Rouleau has a history as a Liberal activist and worked with former Prime Minister John Turner.
This Commission was not independent, as it should have been. It was Liberals investigating Liberals.
Is anyone really surprised that Liberals protect their own?
At the end of the day, the findings of Rouleau don’t really matter.
We all know that Trudeau would not have resigned even if the Commission had found he overstepped his powers.
We all know that Jagmeet Singh would not have held Trudeau accountable by withdrawing his support and forcing an election.
No matter the findings of this illegitimate inquiry, Trudeau’s actions of one year ago exposed him as the tyrant he is.
He crushed peaceful protesters with police horses.
He threw people in jail on false charges.
He froze people’s bank accounts without due process.
The Freedom Convoy forced Trudeau to show his true colours.
It exposed the opposition, the NDP, Conservatives, and Bloc as incompetent and incapable of holding the government to account.
Frederick, we must replace these corrupt politicians with People’s Party MPs willing to govern in the best interest of all Canadians!
Maxime Bernier Hails the Anniversary of the Truckers Freedom Convoy
One year ago today marked the beginning of a historic moment in Canadian history.
The beginning of the largest human rights protest Canada has ever seen.
The beginning of the most inspiring act of civil disobedience I have ever experienced.
The Freedom Convoy.
After 2 years of government tyranny, of lockdowns and travel bans, of curfews and stay at home orders, of governments pitting families and friends against each other, of propaganda and psychological manipulation…
Brave Canadian truckers started a movement that would wake up a nation and inspire the world.
Starting in the Western heartland, they drove east. The line of trucks and cars grew as they passed through each city and province.
Patriotic Canadians gathered on highway overpasses, waving flags and raising homemade signs.
A year ago today they began to arrive in Ottawa.
The corrupt hacks and career politicians that walk the halls of Parliament were reminded that these buildings, this country, belongs to us.
They were reminded that Canadians are not just serfs paying taxes to support their insane globalist projects and inflated MP salaries.
We are a proud people not to be treated like slaves or cogs in some broken machine.
Trudeau smeared the protestors as racists and misogynists. “A small fringe minority with unacceptable views”.
The fake news media painted it as an “occupation.” They claimed the citizens of downtown Ottawa were being “terrorized” and lied about protestors committing arson and other crimes.
But I was there in person. I experienced it first hand.
And I can tell you, it was the most beautiful, peaceful, and patriotic event I have ever seen.
After two years of misery and discrimination, of being separated from friends and family, there was a special sense of love and togetherness in the streets of Ottawa.
People were proud to be Canadian again.
But just as pride and patriotism was resurging in Canada, Justin Trudeau stomped it out, like a campfire at the end of the night.
He gave himself unprecedented powers, meant to protect Canadians at times of war.
He did things that should never be done to peaceful Canadian citizens.
He weaponized the financial system, shutting down fundraisers and freezing people’s bank accounts without due process.
Storm troopers took to the streets, shooting journalists with tear gas and trampling people with horses.
Pride in our country evaporated. We were reminded the tyrants are still in control.
Even though the Freedom Convoy was violently crushed, it was still a brilliant success.
Public opinion had turned. Provincial governments started to quietly drop mandates and restrictions.
We must not forget about what the tyrannical Liberals did to us. What the NDP and Bloc Québécois enabled. What the Conservatives failed to oppose.
We must recapture the fervor and passion of the Freedom Convoy and start fighting now to make change in the next election.
We must replicate what the Freedom Convoy accomplished. After filling the streets of Ottawa with the People, we must fill the House of Commons with People’s Party MPs.
He that Hath No Sword, Let Him Sell His Garment and Buy One
Here in the Dominion of Canada, we are now in the eighth year of the federal premiership of Captain Airhead, or Justin Trudeau to use the unkind slur by which he is often called. He came to power in the Dominion election of 2015 with a majority win for the Liberals and has managed to cling to power ever since with slim pluralities. Despite, however, the fact that he has been in a position of minority government since 2019, he continues to govern like he has a clear, blank-cheque of a mandate, to do whatever he wants, no matter how unjust and divisive his various agendas turn out to be.
Take Bill C-21. Please, take it. This bill was tabled (1) early last year and had finished going through its first two readings around the beginning of summer in June. The bill is the product of all the hot air that has been coming from the Liberal government since the multiple shooting incident in Nova Scotia in April of 2020. Shortly after the attacks, Captain Airhead announced on the Communist holiday that a ban by Order-in-Counsel would take effect immediately on what he called “assault-style” weapons. This was all a lot of smoke and mirrors. Actual assault weapons of the kind that match the way the Prime Minister keeps describing them, i.e., weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time, were already illegal in Canada and had been long before the Nova Scotia shootings. The “assault-style weapons” that he was going after were merely non-military grade rifles that had been made to look like military rifles for those to whom such an appearance had an aesthetic appeal. Captain Airhead then began shooting his mouth off for the last three years about the need to make our streets safe from gun crime, even as he introduced or stuck to policies on everything from border control to mind-altering drugs to bail reform that had the opposite effect. Bill C-21 if passed would amend various Acts of Parliament to enshrine a much broader gun ban than the one of 2020 into statutory law. It would do absolutely nothing about making our streets safe from gun crime because these crimes are overwhelmingly committed with guns that are illegally obtained – as were the guns in the Nova Scotia shootings, incidentally – because they are already illegal. None of these acts of the Trudeau Liberals, from the Order-in-Council of 1 May, 2020 to Bill C-21, have had or will have much of an effect on making Canadians safer from crimes either of the Nova Scotia variety or of the kind that afflicts our inner cities. Those who are most affected by such empty, self-righteous, gestures are law-abiding Canadians who own guns that they acquired legally and have only used legally. Liberals like the Prime Minister, Bill Blair and Marco “the Mendacious” Mendicino think nothing about unjustly and unfairly punishing such people for the crimes of actual gun criminals against whom they are either unable or unwilling to act.
All the criticism of Bill C-21 and its drafters in the preceding paragraph applied to the bill even before it went into Committee consideration after the second reading in the House which is where it presently stands. During the Committee stage, however, the Liberals amended it in a way that made it much worse. The amendment, which was introduced very late in the year, the Liberals apparently hoping to squeak the amended bill through Committee and its third reading before the House adjourned for Christmas and relying upon the amendment having been introduced just prior to the anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre to shield the move from criticism, greatly expanded the list of guns to be banned. While the Liberals continue to shout “misinformation” and “disinformation” at anyone, especially His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservatives, when they point this out, it is quite reasonable to conclude from the amended list of guns to be banned that rural Canadians, especially farmers and hunters, are being targeted here. There are guns on the list that are clearly hunting guns and which are in no way connected to gun crime in Canada. A traditional shotgun made by English manufacturer Webley and Scott for hunting birds is one such example. There are many others. (2) Indeed, if you were to draw up a list of the most common guns used by farmers and hunters, you would find that many of the most prominent guns on the list are included in the amended version of Bill C-21. The Liberal Party under its current management loves to turn Canadians against each other, to reward those who vote Liberal, and rub the noses of those who do not vote Liberal in Liberal laws, but here this backfired against them. At present, as a minority government, they are propped up by the socialist party, the New Democrats, who agreed to support them in Parliament until the next Dominion election. It is not just the Conservatives, however, who have a large rural base but the NDP as well. While the NDP is led by urban socialists, much of their caucus represent northern ridings where reservations in which hunting remains a huge part of the way of life are to be found. When the Assembly held an emergency session in early December and condemned the Liberal bill as an assault on their way of life the NDP had no choice but to join the Conservatives in opposing the Bill in its currently amended form. When this happened, even the few Liberals who represent rural ridings felt free to break ranks with the leadership of their own party over the issue. Call it a Christmas miracle.
While initially when faced with such opposition the government gave signs of being willing to make concessions, when asked a few weeks later about this the Prime Minister indicated that they intended to pass Bill C-21 and doubled down on accusing the Conservatives of “misinformation” and “disinformation” for telling the truth about how the bill would adversely affect law-abiding rural Canadians without doing anything about actual gun crime. How this shall unfold in this New Year remains to be seen.
Earlier last year Captain Airhead made a remark in an interview that is quite revealing about the attitude he brings to this issue. Appearing on an American podcast (Pod Save the World) he defended his government’s gun control policies and contrasted American and Canadian culture saying:
and we have a culture where the difference is, guns can be used for hunting or for sport-shooting in Canada, and there are lots of gun owners, and they’re mostly law-respecting and law abiding, but you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada. That’s not a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else.
It would be interesting to know if he really believes this or if he was just shooting his mouth off without thinking. It is, of course, nonsense. Canadians do indeed have a constitutional and legal right of self-protection and when a right is explicitly spelled out as such in constitution and law the implicit corollary is the right to employ such means as the explicit right may require. Trudeau may be under the mistaken impression that his father’s Charter is the Canadian constitution, a mistake about which I shall have more to say shortly, but even if we limit our discussion of the constitution to the Charter his statement would be wrong. Section 7 of the Charter by spelling out Canadians right to security of the person, recognizes their right of self-protection. Furthermore, the Firearms Act recognizes self-protection as a legitimate grounds for a firearms permit (Section 20) and the Criminal Code (Sections 34, 35) acknowledges the right to use force to protect one’s person and property.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, properly understood, of course, is not Canada’s constitution, but a part of Canada’s constitution that was added in 1982. Even the British North America Act, which, contrary to what many mistakenly think was not repealed in 1982 but renamed (the Constitution Act, 1867), taken together with the Charter, is only part of our constitution. In Canada, we have a constitution that is both written and unwritten, and the unwritten parts are the largest. The Charter itself acknowledges that its enactment does not annul other rights and freedoms than those spelled out it in it, that Canadians had previously enjoyed as part of our constitutional heritage of Common Law and parliamentary monarchy. The right to use firearms in self-protection was already part of that heritage before the American Revolution and was not invented by the United States. The only thing distinctively American about the United States’ version of the idea of the right to use firearms in self-protection is the notion that the right is absolute. That people have the basic rights of life, liberty, and property, and the necessary corollary right to protect the same, and consequently the right to the means to such protection was recognized by both the Tory (Sir William Blackstone) and Whig (John Locke) traditions before the latter gave birth to both the American Revolution and the Liberal Party, which, for all of Trudeau’s yap about American influence on Canada, has always been the party of Americanization.
There is a tendency in some Christian circles to misinterpret the teachings of Christ in way that is parallel to how Trudeau misinterprets the Canadian constitution and law. These misguided brethren have the idea that not merely the use of guns but self-protection in general is forbidden believers by Jesus’ teachings (the Sermon on the Mount specifically), and example (He allowed Himself to be arrested, falsely accused, tortured, and crucified without resisting). In an extreme form that is associated with the tradition of the far left radical wing of the continental Protestant Reformation this interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and example is taken to mean that Christians cannot serve as policemen, soldiers, or in any other office of the state that requires the use of force.
With regards to the Sermon on the Mount this misinterpretation arises from the basic error of failing to give due weight to Matthew 5:17-19 or to note how these verses apply to what immediately follows in the remainder of the chapter. These verses are the warning not to think that Jesus had come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them. They come before Jesus’ saying that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and His expansion upon what that entails with a series of six contrasts in which one variation or another of the words “ye have heard that it was said to them of old time” introduces a quotation from the Old Testament, and then Jesus introduces the other side of the contrast with “but I say to you”. These latter words are ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν in the Greek. δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν means “but I say to you” without the ἐγὼ and ἐγὼ like all other nominative case personal pronouns in Greek is only used for emphasis. By emphasizing the first person pronoun in this way, in this sort of contrast, Jesus declares His Own authority in speaking to be on par with that of the Old Testament Scriptures. This format could easily suggest to some minds that Jesus was telling His followers to disregard the Old Testament and listen to Him instead. Verses 17 to 19 warn His hearers against taking His words in that manner.
With regards to the first two contrasts, in which the Old Testament quotations are taken from the Decalogue, there is less need of such a warning since what follows the “but I say to you” intensifies the meaning of the quoted commandment. The third and fourth contrasts, however, could easily be taken as contradicting the Old Testament commandments. The quotations come from the civil portion of the Mosaic Law, the instructions with regards to divorce and swearing oaths. Jesus tells His followers that anyone who divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her and anyone who marries her to commit adultery, and tells them not to swear at all. Verses 17 to 19 tell us that this is not to be taken as annulling the civil provisions of the Mosaic Law. Therefore, when Jesus said “swear not at all” this had nothing to do with the courtroom, as those sects whose members won’t take the oath before testifying in court wrongly think, but with oaths in common conversation. Swearing on a Bible to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” does not violate Jesus’ instructions. Saying “by gum” in casual conversation does. (3)
The same principle applies to the last couplet of contrasts. In the first of these, the Old Testament quotation is the Lex Talionis “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. In the second the quotation is the Second Greatest Commandment, to love your neighbour. Note that in this final contrast, in addition to the Old Testament quotation there is added the words “and hate thine enemy”, a false extrapolation from the Old Testament commandment, and it is this false extrapolation to which Jesus speaks with His “but I say to you” which here directly contradicts the unscriptural add-on with the instruction to “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.”.
It is Jesus’ “but I say to you” remarks in this last couplet of contrasts that is taken by some to mean that Christians are not allowed to protect themselves against violence. What do verses 17 to 19 tell us about Jesus’ instructions to turn the other cheek?
The first thing to note, is that clearly verses 17 to 19 tell us that Jesus was not setting aside the Lex Talionis as the standard of criminal justice to be applied in a court of law. Since that is the case, the extreme interpretation that says that Jesus’ followers are not serve as officers of law enforcement or any other state office the duties of which require the use of force is a twisting of the meaning of this passage.
The second thing to note is that just as clearly “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” cannot be speaking about protecting oneself against the violent attacks of others. This is because the right of self-protection was established in the Mosaic Law. Exodus 22 is the operative passage. If somebody breaks into another person’s house in the middle of the night, that person – the homeowner not the burglar – is not guilty of a crime if he uses lethal force against the housebreaker. It was a limited right – it lasted only to daybreak after which the homeowner would be guilty, presumably because other options than lethal force would then be available – rather than an absolute right, but it is there and therefore, we can conclude from Matthew 5:17-19, that the instruction to turn the other cheek does not forbid such self-protection. Indeed, this should be apparent from Jesus’ very words. The verb translated “smite” is ῥαπίζω and while this word did originally mean “strike with a stick” – it is derived from a noun meaning “stick” or “rod” – or “cudgel” or “thrash”, it later came to be used as shorthand for the phrase ἐπὶ κόρρης πατάξαι which more or less means “knock upside the head” and in writings contemporaneous with the New Testament generally means a “slap in the face”. This is what it means here in the Gospel where the right cheek is specifically mentioned. This particular combination refers not to an attack on the security of one’s person, but to an insult, the kind of insult that affronts one’s honour and challenges one to a duel. To accept that challenge is to take a situation in which a confrontation has been building up in words and escalate it into violence, potentially lethal violence. The response prescribed by Jesus, however, is one that would defuse such a powder keg. It is quite perverse, therefore, to take Jesus’ words here as forbidding you from taking measures to protect yourself in situations that are already violent.
This brings us to Jesus’ Own example. There are a number of important observations to be made. The first of these is that Jesus clearly did not believe that the use of force is never called for in any situation. Had He thought that way He would not have overturned the tables of the money-changers and drove the merchants out of the Temple. The second, is that prior to His meekly submitting to arrest He commanded His disciples to procure for themselves the means of self-protection by selling their clothes if necessary (Luke 22:36, from which the title of this essay is taken). The third is that His submission to being arrested, falsely charged, falsely convicted, tortured, and crucified was necessary because it was through these events that He fulfilled the purpose for which He came into this world in the first place, to offer Himself up as the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Related to this last observation is one that can be made about Jesus’ early followers, both in the New Testament and in the early centuries of post-New Testament Christian history. While it is true that the early Christians submitted to being tortured, imprisoned, and killed for Jesus’ sake, the most important words here are “for Jesus’ sake”. Jesus had warned His followers at various times, such as in the Olivet Discourse and in the earlier original commissioning of the Twelve Apostles (and later the Seventy), that thy would be persecuted in this manner because of His name and told them that they would be blessed and rewarded for this. The early Christians rejoiced at the opportunity to suffer for Christ in this way. All of this, however, had to do with their being treated in this way because they were Christians, because they publicly confessed and proclaimed Christ. If a disciple were walking down a street in ancient Corinth and were pulled into an alley and beaten and robbed of everything he had on him and left to die, not because he was a Christian but because the robber who neither knew nor cared what his religious beliefs were wanted some quick cash, this did not make a martyr out of that disciple. When the early Christians qua Christians, were persecuted, tortured, and killed in the name of the Christ they confessed, by submitting to such treatment they bore witness to that Christ, and by doing so persuaded many others of the truth of their faith. Just as good came out of the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, in that His death paid for the sins of the world and made salvation available to all, so good came out of the martyrdom of His followers which contributed to the spread of the Gospel throughout the ancient world. The willingness of the early Christians to submit to martyrdom or rather to embrace it – St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, is said to have yearned for martyrdom his entire Christian life and mourned when he survived earlier persecutions than the one in which he finally attained it – should not therefore be taken as evidence that they thought they needed to submit without resisting to any and every act of violence. While the death of Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of the world and the martyrdom of the early Christians helped the Gospel to spread like wildfire, most types of violent deaths – robbing someone for his wallet, murdering someone in a fit of rage, the cold-blooded assassination of your business or political rivals, killing someone in a drunken or drug-induced brawl, etc. – accomplish no such good. To submit to such acts can indeed do evil to others. If you give in to the demands of a bully, for example, he will generally not be satisfied and leave you alone, but will continue to bully you more and demand more of you, and will be emboldened to bully others, until someone stands up to him. This applies to other forms of violent aggression as well. Those who erroneously think that the teachings and example of Jesus and His early followers tell us that we ought to submit in non-resistance to every sort of violent crime are telling us that we should be content to allow our neighbours to suffer from society being overrun by violent crime. That is an odd way of loving one’s neighbour. The Second Greatest Commandment, of course, is to “love thy neighbour as thyself”. If someone’s idea of loving himself is that he should allow everyone and everything to walk all over him, submit to every sort of affront to his human dignity, and let every imaginable sort of violent crime be perpetrated against himself, I would not place much stock in his love for his neighbour.
(1) This terminology might confuse readers from the United States if they are not aware of the difference between their usage and ours. In the Commonwealth to “table” a bill means to introduce it in parliament for consideration, i.e., to “put it on the table”. In American parlance it has the opposite meaning, to remove a bill from consideration, or to “take it off the table”.
(3) This is, of course, where the word “swearing” in the negative sense of the term comes from. Originally, “swearing” in the negative sense meant the use of oaths outside of a courtroom. Some older Canadians may still remember a time when they would be reprimanded for swearing for saying any of the various sorts of “by this or that” casual oaths. Ironically, as the word came to take on the generic meaning of “language you shouldn’t use” so as to include cursing, which Scripture is also against, and barnyard or gutter slang about which the Scripture is silent, the sorts of phrases it originally and literally described, dropped out of what most people think when they hear the word. — Gerry T. Neal
