(This is Doug Ford in April 2020 telling the public that he thinks masks are beneficial, but won’t say or do anything without the approval of the Health Department. Not like he’s Premier of Ontario or anything.)
(This is Doug Ford in October 2018 telling the public that respecting civil rights and religious freedoms is more important than public safety. Apparently the laws of gravity don’t apply since the turban is religious.)
1. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
As of the time of writing this, the “planned-emic” series has 23 pieces in it, including efforts to shift the culture, in order to make mask wearing the new normal. Lots of detail in the series.
3. Helmets Mentioned In Previous Article
The topic of letting motorcycle riders evade health and safety regulations was mentioned on this site nearly 2 years ago. While it seemed absurd at the time, perhaps there is a silver lining to this double standard.
Whatever faith you may belong to, it doesn’t matter. But know that from this day on: your religious beliefs don’t allow you to wear a mask in public. Forcing you to do so will violate your conscience and beliefs.
4. Resisting The “Culture Shift”
This was brought up in the last coronavirus piece but worth repeating. There is a deliberate, conscious, and planned effort to make mask wearing normalized and mandatory throughout the world. In parts of the West, this is not so much being imposed, but by attempts to “shift the culture”, to make this the new way of life. It’s time to fight back against it.
There aren’t criminal penalties in the West for not wearing masks — yet. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen at some point in the future.
5. BC Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs
“Point in Time” Regulation Content
Motor Vehicle Act
Motorcycle Safety Helmet Exemption Regulation
B.C. Reg. 237/99
Section 1 BEFORE amended by BC Reg 62/2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Exemption
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:
(a) a person who
(i) practices the Sikh religion, and
(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.
BC has given Sikhs an exemption on wearing helmets when riding a motorcycle since 2017.
6. Alberta Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs
Overview
Sikhs who wear turbans are exempt from:
.
the Vehicle Equipment Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
the Off-highway Vehicle Regulation helmet requirement in the Traffic Safety Act
.
This means:
drivers and passengers who are over 18 and are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride a motorcycle without using a helmet
.
drivers and passengers who are bona fide members of the Sikh religion who wear a turban can ride an off-highway vehicle without using a helmet
.
Turbans are an integral part of the Sikh identity. This decision allows them to ride without having to remove their turban.
Alberta is the third jurisdiction in Canada to allow this exemption, alongside British Columbia and Manitoba.
In March 2018, Alberta gave Sikhs and exemption on helmets.
The following persons are exempt from wearing a helmet:
• persons riding motorcycles in a legally-authorized parade
• bona fide members of the Sikh religion
On page 8 of the handbook, it clearly states that Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets, as are people taking part in a parade.
8. Ontario Exemption On Helmets For Sikhs
Despite obvious safety concerns with letting some people ride motorcycles without helmet, Ford seems to think that religious freedom is a much more important virtue.
9. Quebec Hypocrisy On Face Coverings
(This is Quebec Premier Francois Legault in 2019 saying that he will use the “Notwithstanding Clause” if needed to ban religious symbols — which include face coverings — from people in government positions. Many countries have banned the Muslim face veil as a security risk.)
(This is Francois Legault in 2020 saying that he strongly recommends everyone wearing face masks in public. Apparently it’s in order to help protect public health.)
10. CHRC – Duty To Accommodate
Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.
The duty to accommodate means that sometimes it is necessary to treat someone differently in order to prevent or reduce discrimination. For examples, asking all job applicants to pass a written test may not be fair to a person with a visual disability. In such cases, the duty to accommodate may require that alternative arrangements be made to ensure that a person or group can fully participate.
What is Undue Hardship?
It is also important to consider that there is a reasonable limit to how far your employer or service provider has to go to accommodate your needs. Sometimes accommodation is not possible because it would cost too much, or create health or safety risks. This is known as undue hardship. Your employer or service provider can claim undue hardship as the reason why certain policies or practices need to stay in place, even though they may have a negative effect on you. They will need to provide sufficient evidence.
Would a service provider be required to make an exception for this planned-emic? Difficult to say how it would play out in court, or at a human rights tribunal. That said, this tactic can definitely be a “boot on the neck” to getting around any requirements in most cases.
11. Mask Objections: Specific Religions
If you are a Muslim (or just “identifying” as one) remind the person that in the Middle East, the headscarf and face coverings are used to subjugate and enslave women. It’s not a sign of religious freedom, but one of being a prisoner. If the service provider doesn’t take a hint, you can always can them a sexist and Islamophobe.
If you are Jewish (or just “identifying” as such) remind the person that attempts to erase your people have been made throughout history. If the service provider doesn’t take the hint, remind him/her that 6 million people died in the Holocaust. If the person still doesn’t get it, feel free to start dropping the term anti-Semite.
There are other religions of course. Feel free to find a scripture that helps your case, no matter how weak or flimsy, to justify your refusal. Reminder, passages can always be quoted out of context, and store clerks probably won’t know the difference. Should that fail, just gaslight the person as a bigot.
12. Alternative: Get A Medical Note
An alternative to this is going to a walk in clinic to get a medical note to attest to the fact that you have a medical condition (such as asthma) that will make wearing a mask unhealthy. There will probably be a fee to pay, but it may be worth it to you.
A further alternative is to just create your own doctor’s note. With Photoshop, and many similar applications, the average computer user can generate a realistic looking note in minutes. No need to prove anything, since doctor-patient confidentiality is grounded in law.
13. Reject Masks, Vote With Your Wallet
If you have a variety of places to shop from, one option is to stop patronizing places which require masks. This avoids the confrontation aspect, but in numbers it sends the message that people won’t shop at such a place.
14. Masks Are About Asserting Control
Does it make sense that a Quebec town would change the law to require masks be worn in public, but not have it kick in for another month? How about Brampton announcing they will be mandatory on transit, in another month? Or Toronto requiring them for transit riders — in another 2 weeks? Make no mistake. This is all about asserting control and domination over you.
But there is a solution. Remember, your religious beliefs do not allow you to wear face coverings. Governments, employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate. While a few may push back and claim it is an undue burden, most will not. This is especially true if you happen to be filming them and suggest it will be posted online.
Never forget: your well being, and the well being of your family members come first. If it means putting a “foot on the neck” of someone just following orders, then so be it. That excuse didn’t work for the Nazis either.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links: between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.
This isn’t an attempt to make a religious argument on the SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity) agenda. Instead, this is more of the effects — both intended and unintended — that this ideology causes. The primary focus is on changing one’s gender/sex, though the same issues apply (to a lesser degree), for sexual orientation.
Undeniably, having this issue promoted the way it is creates a few problems. First, there are a lot of physical and mental health issues that are still present. Second, genuine criticism and concern is frequently shut down under the pretense of bigotry. This can also lead to doxing and damaged careers. Third, it allows those with an agenda to essentially rewrite the laws for society as a whole. Fourth, the lives that get destroyed are often lost and ignored afterwards.
While the “conversion techniques” described in the UN report are barbaric and savage, this is not an effort to endorse SOGI. Trying to change one’s sex is not something that should become normalized or promoted. This is especially true among children.
Don’t get the wrong idea. There are serious issues that people face, and compassion is needed. However, the solutions that are promoted and pushed in society today are destructive and harmful, and need to be called out.
Consider this: instead of mangling and destroying your body, what if that peace could be achieved another way? Isn’t finding a way to be happy a better option?
5. Why Is Pride Even Needed?
Let’s just address this briefly: what is even the point of having Pride every year? If the goal was about legal equality, that has been achieved long ago. Even same sex marriage became legalized nationally in 2005.
Think it through. Once all of the major issues are resolved, then whatever is left is less and less important. Bake my cake? Wax my privates? Cater my wedding? Are these really the problems that are plaguing society?
Whether accidental or by design, the continued push by LGBTQ activists has the effect of causing people who were otherwise accepting of the movement to begin rejecting it. Purity spirals never end well.
6. UN Wants Ban On Conversion Therapy
83. Practices of “conversion therapy”, based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected, are discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, actions to subject lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons to practices of “conversion therapy” are by their very nature degrading, inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture. States must examine specific cases in the light of the international, regional and local framework on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment.
84. Perpetrators of abuse through practices of “conversion therapy” include private and public mental health-care providers, faith-based organizations, traditional healers and State agents; promoters additionally include family and community members, political authorities and other agents.
85. Under the conditions established by international human rights law and the international framework on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, practices of “conversion therapy” may engage the international responsibility of the State.
86. Practices of “conversion therapy” provoke profound psychological and physical damage in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or gender-diverse persons of all ages, in all regions of the world.
87. In view of the foregoing, the Independent Expert recommends that States:
(a) Ban the practices of “conversion therapy” as described in the present report, including by:
(i) Clearly establishing, through appropriate legal or administrative means, a definition of prohibited practices of “conversion therapy”, and ensuring that public funds are not used, directly or indirectly, to support them;
(ii) Banning practices of “conversion therapy” from being advertised and carried out in health-care, religious, education, community, commercial or any other settings, public or private;
(iii) Establishing a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the ban on practices of “conversion therapy”, commensurate with their gravity, including in particular, that claims should be promptly investigated and, if relevant, prosecuted and punished, under the parameters established under the international human rights obligations pertaining to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iv) Creating monitoring, support and complaint mechanisms so that victims of practices of “conversion therapy” have access to all forms of reparations, including the right to rehabilitation, as well as legal assistance;
The report does list several forms of “conversion therapy” that are absolutely horrific, such as forced gang rape. These are inexcusable under any circumstances.
That being said, the UN findings take the position that SOGI should be normalized and accepted by everyone. It implies that even very young children should be able to engage in this sort of behaviour. It isn’t normal for very young children (or anyone for that matter), to want to change their gender, yet the UN report makes no mention of it. Instead, people should be accepted as they are.
The UN report leaves out many important details and topics which should be addressed. However, the report is clearly motivated by ideology, not compassion or truth.
Interestingly, Bill C-8 would list materials promoting conversion therapy to be materials corruption public morals in the Canadian Criminal Code.
As this Federal bill is just one example of this nonsense being pushed, consider the mental gymnastics needed for any of this to make sense. A father can’t stop his 11 year old child from starting a sex change, because it would be in the interests of the child. Yet, the Federal Government in 2018 watered down the criminal penalties for sex crimes against children. The also lowered the age of consent for anal sex, because that was supposedly a priority.
Various bills and laws are being considered across the world to ban conversion therapy. Now, some methods in the 3rd world are pretty savage, efforts should be made to determine if the person (especially a child) really wants to do this. The person should also be made fully aware of the consequences they are facing.
In 2019, the CBC wrote about the proposed ban, mentioning health risks depending on the type of conversion, but provided little concrete detail. Omitted was the harm that transitioning young children can cause.
8. Long Term “Aging Out” Research
A 2009 study of adolescents with gender dysphoria found that for the majority, this did not persist into adulthood. To be fair, a large part of the original sample group wasn’t available.
Steensma-2013_desistance-rates
A 2013 study found that 84% of adolescents who had gender dysphoria had their symptoms stop in adulthood.
An article was written in 2016 by Jesse Singal about what was missing from the discussion from trans-activists: regrets, and people wishing to change back.
James Cantor has a dozen studies listed in this article which followed on teens/adolescents with gender dysphoria
Lebovitz, P. S. (1972). Feminine behavior in boys: Aspects of its outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1283–1289
Zuger, B. (1978). Effeminate behavior present in boys from childhood: Ten additional years of follow-up. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 19, 363–369
Money, J., & Russo, A. J. (1979). Homosexual outcome of discordant gender identity/role: Longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 29–41
Zuger, B. (1984). Early effeminate behavior in boys: Outcome and significance for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 90–97.
Davenport, C. W. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 511–517.
Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kosky, R. J. (1987). Gender-disordered children: Does inpatient treatment help? Medical Journal of Australia, 146, 565–569
Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.
Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.
Singh, D. (2012). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence
and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.
Plenty of available research suggests the overwhelming majority of youth with gender dysphoria eventually get past it. So why exactly the push to have younger and younger children participating and messing up their lives?
Does banning conversion therapy mean that this type of research will become banned? Will it be considered hate speech to talk about it? How does hiding the plentiful amount of study done help people suffering from this condition? Of course this doesn’t even get into the tons of comorbid conditions and the suicide rates.
Don’t Liberals routinely claim that they are the “party of science”? Or does that only matter when the science fits their preshaped agenda?
9. Gender Dysphoria/Autism Link?
While it may be too early to say definitively, research has been done into gender dysphoria and other conditions such as Autism and Aspberger’s. If there is any truth to it, giving hormone blockers to autistic people (especially autistic children) amounts to medical malpractice and child abuse.
10. Bill C-16 Already Silenced Debate
To a large degree, Bill C-16 has already cut off a large part of the debate at least regarding the trans issue. Both the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Code were amended to make “gender identity or expression” a protected ground.
To start out: “gender identity or expression” is so vague that it could be applied to a lot of different things. It doesn’t just refer to people who are transgender. Nor does it prevent someone from demanding made up pronouns, or repeatedly changing their pronouns.
What most likely started off with good intentions is a disaster waiting to happen.
11. Society Shouldn’t Normalize This
Instead of condemning conversion therapy as horrible, realize that trying to make people content in their bodies should at least be considered. Rather than making mutilation the first option, it should be the last thing (the very last thing), considered by doctors and others in the field.
In contrast to the instinct to make the child happy, responsible parents should make every effort to find out what is wrong with the child and find a way to deal with it.
If someone has a legitimate condition and needs to find a way to deal it, fine. But society shouldn’t be making this sort of thing mainstream, or encourage others to do it.
The incessant, never-ending demands of activists make even many tolerant people stop caring, or become outright resentful.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption
CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted. CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media. CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas. CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada. CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial. CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism. CLICK HERE, for #8: Koch/Atlas both sides, AB court challenge.
3. Why This Is Important
Recognizing the agenda behind a piece of media is essential to understanding why it was created in the first place. Was it written as a thriller? An action piece? As comedy? For educational purposes? Or was it created in order to push a certain way of thinking, all while cloaked as entertainment?
This question applies to print media, as well as podcasts, movies, and TV series. Everything is drafted with a purpose, but figuring out what it is may be tricky.
The section on MEDIA so far has focused on the corrupt and thoroughly biased media. However, it should be noted that movies and shows have agendas — even those sold as simple pleasure.
Getting red pilled involves recognizing the goals of globalism: world domination, population control, electronic monitoring, creating a dependent class, loss of identity, loss of faith, corruption of morals, etc…. Then go back and take a look at some of the movies and shows you enjoyed previously. In many cases, it is completely obvious.
Certainly the argument can be made that movies are just supposed to be an escape from the everyday world. While there is truth to that, one has to wonder sometimes where the ideas come from.
4. Example: CW’s “The 100” Show
Note: this was a show that I binged watched in early 2017. It was based (very loosely) on the books by Kass Morgan, and takes place in a post apocalyptic wasteland, and a spaceship with a depleting oxygen reserve. It came across like an interesting, although strange show at the time, but nothing else seemed amiss. However, after going down enough rabbit holes, it is impossible to look at it the same way again. This review focuses only on the show. Spoilers abundant from Seasons 1-4.
Depopulation
This happens first in Season 1, where the spaceship has a design flaw. There isn’t enough air to sustain everyone on the ship, so a huge part of the conflict is how to conduct the “culling”. It also happens in Season 4. When the next wave of radiation is about it, there aren’t enough spaces in the newly discovered bunker to take in everyone, so decisions have to be made about who lives and who dies. Yes, over and over, the show has series discussions about how many people to let die.
Adrenochrome
The main “villain” in Season 2 is the people in Mount Weather. They haven’t developed immunity to the naturally high levels of radiation on the Earth, since they are in an underground bunker. Since the Mountain isn’t completely sealed, bits of radiation get in anyway. The soldiers of the Mountain resort to going out (in hazmat suits) to kidnap people. Those are brought them back to the harvest chamber, locked them cages, and eventually drained for blood. As even that is not a permanent solution, the Mountain Men eventually start using bone marrow instead. They still kill their prisoners, even though it is not necessary. In Season 4, the main characters become what they despise when doing the same thing to a genetically enhanced nightblood named Luna.
“Blood Must Have Blood”
Vengeance is normal in many cultures, especially ones constantly at war. That being said, the 100 seems to go overboard in its blood references.
Constant Holocaust Reminders
Since the Mountain Men, can’t breathe the outside air, it is their major weakness when battling with the outsiders. There is only so much you can do in a hazmat suit with an ait tank. in fact, there are many attempts to flood the mountain with outside air and kill them. Gassing the Mountain Men is repeatedly referred to afterwards as genocide.
***Incidently, being locked away in the bunker all their lives has led to the Mountain Men having compromised immune systems. If they had only been outside to begin with, they would have been okay. Coronavirus parallels?
Drug Dependency
While the Mountain Main do bring back many prisoners as a source of fresh blood (harvest), they also have a program (Cerberus), to turn others into “Reapers”. These prisoners are given injections of a drug concoction which makes them subservient and dependent. These drug addicted Reapers work as slaves both inside the mountain and out, and even help collect new victims for the harvest chamber.
Controlled By Sound Waves
Small aside to the last section. The Mountain Men have developed portable devices that can cause excruciating pain (and submission) of the Reapers if used at the right frequency. 5G anyone?
Tribes Rules By Overlord
In the show, there are 12 warring clans (the people from the sky become the 13th clan). These groups have been at each other’s throats for generations, but are held in check by a Commander who rules over all of them. This seems to smack of a globalist arrangement. In Seasons 2, 3, 4, 5, there is always a struggle with the Commander trying to hold all of the clans in check.
Genocide V.S. Enslavement
This them occurs throughout the shows. Main characters weighing the odds of whether or not to wipe out other clans, or to live with them, but under some higher rule.
Grounders’ Leader Is Chipped
This chip is called “the Flame” and is supposed to contain the spirits of all the previous Commanders. He or she gets the chip inserted when ascending to the head of the 12 clans. It turns out that the Flame is just an AI, and that there is nothing magical about it. And it is different form the chips in the next section.
Mind Control Chips
“ALIE”, which is artificial intelligence, turns out to be the main villain of Season 3, although it isn’t clear for a long time. The program commands its subjects to expand the number of people, by getting them to swallow specialized chips. The rationale is that if everyone was chipped, and focused on the same task, they could ride out the upcoming radiation wave safely — or at least their consciousness can. Although the AI is not programmed to force people to take the chip, it employs a number of techniques to get around that rule, including coercion, and threatening to kill loved ones. Survivors trying to free others (fry their chips) could be seen as trying to deprogram their friends and family.
Pushing Globohomo Agenda
Although pretty tame by the standards of other recent shows, the 100 does have several prominent characters acting as gay couples.
5. Look Past The Story Being Told
Question everything. Whether it is in the news that is being presented, or the entertainment on the screen, question it. Ask why is this story being told, and what is behind it.
Is this really just a music video, or is it filled with references to Satan and the Illuminati? Is this just a Sitcom, or are they trying to push the gay agenda on the public? Is this super hero vulnerable to certain frequencies as a weakness, or are the writers pushing noise as a form of crowd control?
At this point, the 100 is a fairly well known TV series, so it serves as a good example. While interesting (for a normie) to watch, there is a lot of messaging behind it. Curiously, the series departed very quickly from the books by Kass Morgan, meaning it was the TV creators who put this together. But in fairness, the plot of the books is pretty morbid too.
The same applies to so called journalists. Ask what narrative they are pushing, and who really funds their work. Find out if there are interests not being disclosed.
Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.
To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.
1. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Views/Bias Of The Author
Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.
Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support
Population replacement of Europeans
Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
Languages other than English and French
Identity politics for certain groups
Foreigners in the government
Foreigners in the military
Forced multiculturalism
Replacement of Christianity in the West
Globohomo agenda world wide
Mutilation of trans-children
Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
Destruction of families
Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
UN and other “multilateral” institutions
Islamification of the West
Foreign aid handed out everywhere
Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
Government control over all major aspects of business
Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
Restricting free speech rights
Strong gun control, seizures
Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.
LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
Languages other than English and French
Identity politics for certain groups
Foreigners in the government
Foreigners in the military
Globohomo agenda world wide
Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
LEGAL forced multiculturalism
Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
Destruction of families
Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
Business interests topping interests of people
Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
“Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners
From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for
3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?
To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.
(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?
(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.
(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly
(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.
(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.
(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?
This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.
4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters
People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.
5. Opposition By Scandal
Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.
6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates
There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.
To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.
Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.
7. Deflect With Personal Attacks
A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments
8. Take The Time To Self-Educate
Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.
There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.
However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.
Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau seem to agree that normal life will not proceed until there is mass vaccination done. Of course, it raises the question: will this become mandatory?
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.
2. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
3. Disclaimer In This Article
Consider the following information to be just that — information. There is no guarantee offered that this will actually work in a person’s circumstances. They are simply options being given, so make your own decision. Yes, just presenting choices.
This scenario is still (for now) hypothetical, but let’s address it. Many people are understandably upset at the prospect (however remote) that forced vaccinations may one day come to Canada. Here are some ideas to fight back.
Granted, some of the ideas will involve deceit and trickery. However, the priority should be looking after your own health, and the health of family members. Honesty is of not the priority here.
As a last resort, consider to what degree you are willing to inflict on another person in order to protect your body from foreign chemicals. This must be a personal decision.
4. Conservative Weakness: Double Edged
Most Provinces in Canada have Conservative governments, and conservatives in general are weaklings. In practice, they function as a sort of “controlled opposition”. This can be a positive or a negative, depending on context. Let’s go through what this means.
The downside to conservative weakness is that they are unable or unwilling to actually stand up for anything. If Ottawa were to impose measures, they would likely give very tepid opposition.
However, there is a benefit to conservatives being spineless: you may be able to run roughshod over them. They are often to timid to fight back, so take advantage of it. Additionally, calling them a bigot may cause them to capitulate faster.
Is this stereotyping? Absolutely it is, but it’s very often true, so don’t disregard it.
5. Argue Over Jurisdiction
Section 91 and 92 of the Constitution outline what is Federal jurisdiction, and what is Provincial jurisdiction. If the Federal Government were to ever order mass vaccinations take place, argue that this encroaches on Section 92(7) of the Constitution, which is health care. Health care is a Provincial matter, and Ottawa cannot intrude.
Of course, if a Province were to insist that everyone were to be vaccinated, challenge it under Section 91(27), which is criminal law. Criminal law can only be made by the Federal Government. If a Province were to make laws that could result in people being detained, then it is an end run around imposing criminal penalties.
Yes, this is deliberately making contradictory arguments, and that is the point. Any forced vaccination scheme needs to be ground to a halt by whatever means are available.
6. Canadian Charter Of Rights
Some other options may be found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here are some sections of it that may be useful to look
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Marginal note:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In any Charter challenge, if it is found that there is a Charter breach, it comes back to Section 1. This section asks if the breach can be reasonably justified. Now, let’s explore a few grounds to refuse.
Fundamental Freedoms
Marginal note:
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Early in his time as Ontario Premier, Doug Ford gave an exemption to Sikhs who want to ride motorcycles without helmets. British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have such exemptions as well. This is idiotic, as gravity won’t care that your inadequately protected head is covered by a religious piece.
If health and safety regulations take a backseat to pandering to religious groups, then take advantage of it.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
If abortion and euthanasia can be protected under the guise of “security of the person”, then certainly preventing unknown chemicals form being put into your body can as well. in fact, the same arguments that the SJW types make can be applied here.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
While the prohibition against search and seizure typically applies to people suspected of, or accused of committing crimes, there is another way to look at it. If a person is forced to produce proof of vaccination, or have their freedoms restricted, you could argue that it does an end run around Section 8.
Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
This is pretty obvious.
Several options exist within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop, or at least slow down any vaccination agenda. This would, at a minimum, violate:
Your right to religious freedom (if your faith doesn’t allow it)
Your right to be secure in your person (pretty self explanatory)
Your right against unreasonable search (such as med history)
Your right to not receive cruel, inhumane punishment
Would these be successful? Who knows? At a minimum they would delay any such measure for months, if not years.
Broadly speaking, here are three paths to follow:
One is to straight up sue the Government (and potentially any people involved). This is commenced by filing a Statement of Claim.
Two is to file a formal request for exemption with whatever health officials are involved. If that is denied, file and Application for Judicial Review.
Three is to proceed with a complaint with your Human Rights Tribunal. Interesting note: human rights are a Provincial matter, so this may void any Federal order.
The details for each are outside the scope of this article. However, consult your Provincial Human Rights Code, or Rules of Civil Procedure (or Courts of Justice Act), for more specific information.
7. Claim To Be On Other Medications
Are you on anti-depressants? Hormone regulators? Oxycontin for back problems? Antibiotics for a previous infection? Guess what, you are now. Don’t be ashamed about being dependent on the pharmaceutical industry.
While this is perhaps the easiest to pull off, it also requires some research to be believable. Do some online research about the ailment(s) you have, including common medications. Most sources will also list side effects of various drugs (and they are plentiful). Remember to ask probing questions about the cross reactions of various medications.
Also, if you can get ahold of the vaccine ingredients — or the list for a similar vaccine — you should do so. Search online to see what these ingredients will react with, and what medications will be fatal to mix with. There’s no need to ACTUALLY be taking these meds. Instead just CLAIM to be taking them.
Murder isn’t murder if it’s self defence. In that same line of reasoning, lying isn’t wrong if it prevents unwarranted harm from coming to you.
8. Fake Being Trans If Needed
This is a subgroup of the last solution.
And yes, this is a serious proposal.
Ever since Bill C-16 passed, which modified both the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Codes, “gender identity and expression” have been considered protected grounds. While this poorly defined expression has caused problems, there is a solution here.
If a person of authority ever insists that you need to be vaccinated, immediately ask how the vaccine will react with the hormones you are taking. This should cause most people to back off. But if the person doesn’t, then demand answers. If need be, threaten to lodge a human rights complaint against them.
Since Bill C-16 protects people who aren’t even transgender, it is okay to use it to throw your weight around. File formal complaints if need be. Sure, the other person(s) will have an enormous amount of aggravation heaped on them, but your well being comes first.
If this vaccine risks you being forced to stop taking hormones, then clearly that is transphobic. If the other person probes for details, there is always the option of bullying them into silence.
9. Weaponize Human Rights Codes
Really, this should be an absolute last resort, although there are people who would choose to do it first. The choice is your to make.
This option involves fully weaponizing the human rights codes (and any other such acts your area may have). It involves making completely bogus complaints of discrimination based on the most harmless or innocuous things, such as a joke taken out of context. Yes, this is going full-SJW. Accuse the person of racism, sexism, or whatever may tangentially apply.
Normally, I would not even suggest such a method, since it will almost certainly lead to people getting either suspended or fired from their positions.
A note of caution: be mindful of other witnesses, or recording devices. This method doesn’t work if the entire event is caught on video.
10. Your Well Being Comes First
While a forced vaccination seems extremely farfetched, there is at least the possibility of it happening. So people need to air out some solutions. Here they are, in order of most to least preferred.
(a) Ideally, these forced vaccines will never come to be a reality. If legislators attempt to enact it, publicly expose and spread the information. Make them back peddle in the face of public scrutiny. Feel free to launch petitions or to prevent this from going ahead.
I would also add doxing to this category. If it stops this from going ahead, then the humiliation of a health care worker, or police officer, or public official, serves a greater good.
(b) Going further: consider taking legal action on the matter. There are several provisions of the law which a suit can be filed under. A few are Sections 2, 7, 8 or 12 of the Canadian Charter. Depending on who orders the mass vaccination, challenge the authority under Section 91 and 92 of the Constitution.
(c) If need be, then use weasel techniques to get out of it. Ask probing questions to determine what is actually in the vaccine, and how it might mix with your current medications. Note: you don’t have to be on anything, but for this — then claim to be.
(d) File formal complaints against specific people involved, regardless of how minor their role. CAUTION: please understand, that there is a lot of hesitancy in offering some of these ideas. Acting maliciously against someone “following orders” can seriously mess up their lives. Find other options if possible.
(e) The option exists for moving to another jurisdiction to avoid the order. However, that is not desirable, as people should be able to stand their ground.
These are just some ideas to consider. The idea is still hypothetical — for now — but may not be at a later point. And it would be a good idea to consider them well in advance of any such order being proposed. In this case, honesty is not a concern; the health of yourself and family members is.
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
This piece addresses the coronavirus “planned-emic”, but in the larger context of an attack on religion.
Over the last few months, the priorities and demands of various governments has seemed illogical, conflicting, and downright nonsensical. Here are just a few examples:
Abortion is still considered an essential service, but performing marriages is something that can wait
Interprovincial travel restricted, but foreigners still allowed in
Mass unemployment gets worse, but foreign workers still imported
Possible arrest for not “social distancing”, but criminals are released for their own safety
Religious gatherings banned, but only for some groups
Shutting down the economy and arranging bailouts for cronies is no shocker. However, there is something more nefarious at play, the destruction of Western Society. In particular, there is a continued attack on a major institution that built the West: Christianity.
It’s bittersweet that Prime Minister Trudeau constantly flouts the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms that his father implemented. There seems to be no hesitation to trample on Section 2 (fundamental freedoms).
As officials in Canada (and the U.S) see nothing wrong with forcibly shutting down religious services, the time is long overdue to fight back.
This fake pandemic is blatant, but it’s part of a larger effort. The goal is to erase the Christian founding of Canada and replace it with a mix of: nihilism; Satanism; Islam; diversity and multiculturalism. The ideology which built the West (and its old-stock) are being replaced.
But while these groups enjoy Human Rights Tribunals and special rights fighting for them, Christian groups are told they have to become secular to be ever more accommodating.
Yes, the majority are being told they can’t have an identity and must accommodate everything under the sun. Yet groups that are hostile to Christians are pandered to endlessly. This is a recipe for breaking up Western nations. This pattern applies both to religions and ethnic groups.
4. Theresa Tam Rehearsed Scenario In 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtSgG6-96×0&feature=youtu.be
Start clip at 56:50. It will give you chills.
Thank you to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the film. In what can only be described as predictive programming, or a trial run, Theresa Tam “Canada’s top Doctor” takes part in a 2010 film about a fictional epidemic in Canada. Doesn’t get much more premeditated than shooting a film a decade in advance.
In the film (56:50 to 57:50) Tam talks approvingly (seeming almost giddy) about being able to enforce mandatory quarantines, using tracking bracelets, and only “worry later” about questions of an overreach. It’s difficult to make the clip look worse than it actually is. Seems that life is now imitating art.
The video also talks about mandatory vaccinations. If people refused, they can be taken “to temporary detention centers”. Again, this video was released in 2010, a decade ago.
5. Lobbying/Vaxx Agenda Behind The Scenes
CLICK HERE, for CV #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying. CLICK HERE, for CV #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation. CLICK HERE, for CV #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan. CLICK HERE, for CV #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines. CLICK HERE, for CV #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda. CLICK HERE, for CV #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm. CLICK HERE, for CV #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates. CLICK HERE, for CV #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research. CLICK HERE, for CV #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research. CLICK HERE, for CV #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132). CLICK HERE, for CV #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature. CLICK HERE, for CV #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
If you doubt that government lobbying and the pharma lobby are greatly influencing how this “pandemic” is playing out, consider the content in the above articles. The Federal Government, the Provincial Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario (among many others), are being lobbied by drug companies.
Furthermore, “depopulation” fetishists like Bill Gates are active in the media claiming vaccines are needed. Globalists everywhere are clamoring for more control of their populations.
There is much more at stake than simply a virus or public illness. Assuming it even exists, the severe overreach cannot be explained merely by hysteria. Something else is in play.
Of course, if Western nations do impose mandatory vaccinations on their citizens, guess which groups will be predominantly impacted?
6. Court Rulings Against Christianity
This page is available on the Canadian Department of Justice website, and lists a few dozen critical cases in Charter precedent. While they may seems appealing on the surface, most are actually quite disturbing. Let’s look at some.
10. Hate speech towards targeted groups
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students.
.
Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence. However, the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism.
.
The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism.
That’s right. As of 1990, “Holocaust denial” is deemed to be a criminal offense, regardless of how well founded it may be. This also applies even when there no violence sought. The Court considers promoting positive relations to be more important than truth.
19. Freedom speech and equality of the LGBTQ2 community
Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Customs officials classified the books and other materials as “obscene” which prevented the shipments from entering Canada. Under the customs regime, businesses and individuals in Canada were prohibited from importing “obscene” materials into Canada.
.
Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right. However, the Court found that the way that the customs officials were applying the law violated the equality rights of the customers of Little Sisters bookstore because the officials were applying a discriminatory standard to their materials compared to those aimed at a heterosexual audience.
.
This case helped pave the way for further recognition of the rights of sexual minorities in Canada and also confirmed that freedom of expression protects the right to receive materials like books. The case also highlighted that both laws and the actions of all government officials must respect the Charter.
So Customs was within its discretion to not allow obscene material into Canada. However, the gay rights screamed discrimination and had their property admitted anyway. Now that drag queen story hour is a reality, will denying child pornography now be constitutionally protected?
24. Religious freedom in school
Gurbaj Singh Multani was an orthodox Sikh student who believed that his religion required him to wear a kirpan at all times, including at school. A kirpan is a religious object worn by people of Sikh faith that looks like a dagger. Multani and his parents agreed with the school board’s request that he seal the kirpan in his clothing at all times while wearing it at school. However, the school board’s council of commissioners told Multani that he could not wear the kirpan to school even if it was sealed in his clothing because bringing dangerous objects to school violated the school’s code of conduct.
.
The Supreme Court found that the council’s decision infringed Multani’s freedom of religion. Multani sincerely believed that his Sikh faith required him to wear the kirpan and the prohibition on wearing it would have prevented him from attending public school altogether. The school board had not justified that a full ban on wearing kirpans in school was a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. There had never been a violent incident involving a kirpan at school and there was no evidence that the kirpan itself was a symbol of violence. The Court’s decision provides important guidance on the relationship between religious freedom, multiculturalism and public education in Canada. A total ban on wearing kirpans in schools ignores the importance of respect for minorities and religious tolerance in Canada’s multicultural society.
It seems that knives are a public safety issue in Canadian schools, and must be banned. That doesn’t seem to apply, though, when people of non-Christian religions complain that it’s mandatory.
29. Supervised injection sites
In 2003, health authorities in British Columbia opened a supervised drug injection site to combat the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. In order for the operation of these sites to be considered legal, the federal Minister of Health must grant an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances. In 2008, the BC health authorities made an application for a new exemption before the previous one expired. The Minister denied the application. The organization that ran the site and a number of its clients argued that the Minister’s decision violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
.
The Supreme Court found that the Minister’s decision would prevent injection drug users from accessing life-saving health services. As a result, the health of the clients would be threatened and their lives would be endangered. Evidence showed that in over the 8 years of its operation, the safe injection site had proven to save lives with no known negative impact on public safety or health. The Minister’s decision went against the public safety objectives it was supposed to be pursuing. It was also arbitrary, meaning it had no rational connection to the government’s stated purpose of protecting lives and health. The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption.
Rather than getting these people real treatment, the BC Health Authorities decided that funded that taxpayer funded narcotics was a better solution. Additionally, BC would also cover the salaries and building overhead needed for this operation to function.
31. Balancing competing rights and freedoms: religious freedom and trial fairness
After N.S. was sexually assaulted, the Crown called her as a witness in the preliminary inquiry of her accused attackers. For religious reasons, N.S. asked to testify wearing a niqab, a head scarf that covers the face except the eyes. The judge ordered her to remove her niqab, but N.S. argued that making her do so would infringe her right to religious freedom.
.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that if wearing the niqab poses no serious risk to trial fairness, a witness who wishes to wear it for sincere religious reasons may do so. This case requires judges try to find a way to balance freedom of religion and trial fairness if the two rights conflict with each other. More generally, this case highlights the need for public institutions to accommodate religious difference as much as possible so everyone feels respected, while still upholding other Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Most adults will know that a lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions. In criminal cases, being able to properly cross examine a witness is very important. Having the face covers denies the other side the chance to fully get a read on the person. Additionally, it is extremely disrespectful to have this coming into the courts at all.
32. Sex work and the right to security of the person
Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott were current or former sex workers who challenged three provisions of the Criminal Code which criminalized various activities relating to prostitution, including:
-public communication for the purposes of prostitution
-operating a bawdy house
-living off of the avails of prostitution
.
They argued that these restrictions deprived sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret, which prevented them from adopting important and life-saving safety measures, even though prostitution itself was legal.
.
The Supreme Court decided these provisions violated the right to security because they increased the serious risks sex workers faced on a daily basis. The government had not proven that the provisions were a proportionate response to the harms of social nuisance and the exploitation of sex workers. The provisions were unconstitutional because they went too far in terms of the conduct they prohibited as compared to the social harms they were supposed to address. In addition, the very serious impact of some of the prohibitions on sex workers’ safety was “totally out of sync” with the objective of the law.
The Canadian authorities have an obligation to ensure that the most degenerate and disgusting acts are performed safely. Perhaps not engaging in it at all would be safer, but who am I to judge?
So what do we have here?
Holocaust denial is an actual crime
Degeneracy allowed into Canada as gay rights
Sikhs can bring knives to school
Taxpayer funded narcotics is a human right
Muslims can conceal their faces while testifying
Laws changed to make sex work safe
Ex-pats with citizenship allowed to vote
Criminals allowed to vote while in prison
The above rulings of course are just a small piece of what has been happening in Western countries. While Christianity (the foundation of the West) is being stripped away, other groups are able to come in and use the courts to impose their ideologies.
Another important one to list is marriage being redefined. While it is arguable how much harm this causes, the gay rights movement has proceeded to demand that institutions such as churches host their weddings, and that bakers make their cakes. So much for not imposing on others.
What is obviously the best option is to stop the ever increasing demands for accommodation. Alternatively, Christians need to start militarizing the courts to have their interests protected. Being passive about it will only lead to their destruction.
Simply being tolerant and accepting of other groups does not work when they seek to replace your way of like with theirs. This is what multiculturalism brings: eventually the host(s) get replaced by the foreigners who are allowed in.
What is the consequence of laws and rulings that strip away the founding religion of the country? Eventually you end up with a group, (despite being a majority), have no real rights. And when they become a minority — as demographics shift — they will become targeted.
7. Churches Shut Down During “Planned-Emic”
Government across the West are ordering religious congregations to stope while the alleged “pandemic” is putting everyone in danger. However, it is nice to see that some are willing to defy what are illegal and unconstitutional orders. This is in the U.S., but things are starting to happen in Canada as well.
Having such incidents videotaped and splashed across the internet causes headaches for the police, who come across looking heavy handed and fascistic. It also creates problems for politicians who claim to support freedom of religion and be religious themselves.
If the court can’t or won’t act to defend these fundamental freedom, then perhaps good old fashioned shaming and humiliation will do the trick.
8. Fighting For Freedom Of Religion
Now let’s get into the Charter a little bit:This is going to be a bit out of order, though done intentionally. The purpose is to go through the mental process of standing up for your rights
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
These are the fundamental freedoms that any modern society would have. The content of section 2 is very similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Without these fundamental freedoms, you are essentially living in a dictatorship. There are 2 provisions in the constitution which will help
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If your rights are being violated, you can cite one of — or both — Sections 24 and 52. Section 24 states that you have the right to seek a remedy in court, and section 52 states that laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no effect. (Note: The Charter is a subset of the Constitution as a whole). But, it is not quite as simple as that, and here is why:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 1 is very important here. Plainly put, it says that the government must be able to justify any Charter violation it causes in any of the further sections. While a difficult burden, it’s often not impossible to meet.
If you believe that these forced church closures violate your Section 2 rights (fundamental freedoms), you can go to court to assert that. Should you be able to prove it, the burden then shifts to the Government to establish that these violations are justified under Section 1.
Interestingly, these prohibitions seems almost exclusively aimed at Christians. Most likely, Muslims would react violently if treated the same way.
Now, would a court find that these restrictions are reasonably justified? The answer is not as clear cut as many would like. It would largely depend on information coming from the Office of Public Health, and laws such as the Quarantine Act or Emergencies Act.
Let’s ignore for the time being that this pandemic is a hoax, and that the courts are politically stacked. Let’s assume it were to play out in a fair way.
9. Quarantine & Emergencies Act
Quarantine station
6 (1) The Minister may establish a quarantine station at any place in Canada.
Marginal note:
.
Provision and maintenance of area or facility
(2) The operator of a facility in which a customs office, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, is located shall, when required in writing by the Minister, provide and maintain free of charge any area or facility, along with its fixtures, that the Minister considers necessary for establishing a quarantine station
Quarantine facilities
7 The Minister may by order designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility and amend, cancel or reinstate the designation.
Well, so much for properties rights if any place in Canada can simply be deemed a quarantine station by the Minister, with no say so by the owners or tenants.
Duty to provide
8 (1) Any person in charge of a place shall, at the request of the Minister, provide that place to the Minister if, in the opinion of the Minister, the temporary use of the place as a quarantine facility is necessary to protect public health.
Marginal note:
Deeming
(2) The place is deemed to be designated as a quarantine facility.
Marginal note:
Compensation
(3) The Minister may compensate any person for the Minister’s use of the place.
Marginal note:
Consultation
(4) The Minister shall consult with the provincial public health authority of the province in which the place is situated before taking possession of it.
The Minister “may” compensate the owners for property that is seized and used but they don’t have to. Also, while the Province must be consulted, it doesn’t say they have to agree.
Arrest without warrant
18 A peace officer may, at the request of a screening officer or quarantine officer, arrest without a warrant and bring to a quarantine officer any traveller who the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe has refused to be isolated or refuses to comply with a measure under subsection 15(3).
Offence committed intentionally
67 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if they cause a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening this Act or the regulations.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
The problem is that so much in this Quarantine Act is discretionary, and leaves citizens with no real rights. The act is too long to cover in a single article, but the link is provided.
National emergency
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
Declaration of a public welfare emergency
6 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public welfare emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 14, may, by proclamation, so declare.
Marginal note:
Contents
(2) A declaration of a public welfare emergency shall specify
(a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
(b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
(c) if the direct effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the direct effects of the emergency extend.
Orders and regulations
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.
There are some problems with the Emergency Act, and they are much the same as with the Quarantine Act. The Act allows the Government broad, sweeping powers, with little in the way of oversight.
How does having entire cities in lockdown, and shutting down religious services make the public safer? The government knows so little about this virus, that it is cutting off the well being and livelihoods of people in the name of scaremongering.
Both the Emergency Act (1985) and the Quarantine Act (2005), have been on the books for a long time. Would invoking either of them be a reasonably justified used of limiting people’s fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter? Would the circumstances allow the infringement to be justified under Section 1?
Most people would say no. And most wouldn’t want important things — such as weekly services — shut down for such vague reasons. However, if Government agents were to CLAIM there is an ever present threat, they may be able to get away with it for a time.
While there is little interest in packed grocery stores (although that is changing), religious services need to be shut down almost entirely. This is not about public safety, but about control.
If the public officials are acting on the orders from near dictatorial politicians, and the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene, what options do we have?
10. Tips On Fighting Back
First, understand that according to Pintea v. Johns (2017), court officers now have a legal obligation to go the extra mile to ensure that self represented people get a fair hearing. It isn’t option.
Second, in most cases (criminal court) there will be a duty counsel that you can speak to — for free — to get general information on how to proceed.
Third, legal research is within the grasp of most everyone with decent reading skills. My favourite is https://www.canlii.org/en/, where there is a wealth of free information. The skill involved is a combination of searching Google and Wikipedia.
Fourth, all of the rules you need to know are freely available online. This includes the Canadian Criminal Code (if applicable), and the Rules for Civil Procedure in your Province.
This experience will be frustrating, but standing up for your rights is within the grasp of most people. You can always pay for a lawyer later if need be.
People who do get arrested, or who are ticketed for practicing their faith (or some other harmless activity) should fight back. Contest the ticket, and fight any charges. If it’s something you and you family are comfortable with, publish the incident, and feel free to out the police officer or by-law officers.
While this does seem daunting, the overwhelming majority of these cases will be quietly dismissed. Why? Because the authorities don’t want a lingering public headache.
But think it through before making a hasty decision.
11. Demographic Replacement Of Christianity
About 20% of Canada’s current population was born in some other country. With such a large presence, immigrants have had a substantial impact on Canada’s religious landscape (as in the United States, where immigrants – including those who are unauthorized – make up an estimated 13% of the total population.)
In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada’s foreign-born population was smaller, largely European and overwhelmingly Christian. In recent years, however, rising numbers of immigrants – nearly half of Canada’s immigrant population – have come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., by comparison, three-in-ten of all foreign-born residents have come from these three regions.
In Canada, disaffiliation has increased markedly within some generations as they have aged. For example, one-in-ten Canadians born between 1947 and 1966 had no religious affiliation in 1981, but one-in-five are unaffiliated as of 2011. Even Canada’s older adults (those born in 1946 or earlier) have experienced gradual increases in disaffiliation; their rate of disaffiliation has gone from the single digits in the 1970s to double digits in recent years. In the U.S., by contrast, the share of people with no religious affiliation has been fairly stable within each generation over time (though disaffiliation has ticked up slightly among American Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – and Gen Xers – those born between 1965 and 1980).
As the geographic origins of Canadian immigrants have shifted, so has their religious makeup. A majority of immigrants (56%) who arrived during the 1970s were either Catholic or Protestant, while about a quarter were affiliated with other religious traditions, including Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Since 2001, about four-in-ten (39%) new Canadian immigrants have belonged to these religious minorities, the same as the share of new immigrants (also 39%) who identify as either Catholic or Protestant. Because immigrants comprise more than a fifth of Canada’s population, the rising share of immigrants who belong to religious minorities has had a substantial impact on the religious composition of the overall population.
This 2013 report from Pew Research details Canada’s changing religious landscape over recent decades. It correctly points out that huge amounts of immigration is in fact changing the overall landscape.
12. Pop’n Replacement Is Spiritual Replacement
This seemingly absurd statement makes sense when you put it into context. Every year, Canada is bringing in large numbers of people from countries that are of a very different religious makeup. Consequently, there is a large demographic shift going on.
(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)
Note: this by no means it everyone who enters Canada in those years. In particular, it leaves out large numbers of students and temporary workers.
Nonetheless: look at who is actually staying in Canada. Each year we bring in people from India (Sikh and Hindu), China (Communist, Atheist), and various Middle Eastern and African nations (Islam). While the people coming in are not monolithic, these trends do have a significant impact on the religious demographic changes in Canada.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in Liberal and Conservative immigration policies. Neither care about maintaining the demographic or founding ideologies of the West. Of course if you bring any of this up, you will be called a bigot.
All they focus on is:
(a) Singing the praises of diversity
(b) Perceived economic growth — ie cheap labour
13. Spiritual Replacement Is Genocide
Consider the UN Convention on preventing and punishing genocide.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Despite the West being founded on Christianity, our “leaders” see nothing wrong with bringing hordes of other ideologies over. They are given free reign and protected status, while Christians must become more secular and accommodating. I wonder how tolerant these other groups will be as their numbers grow. This is all while “conservatives” crow about how tolerant they are.
Just like with replacing ethnic groups, replacing religious groups also qualifies as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention.
14. Foreign Religions Taking Over
At the Al-Quds Festival, Muslim man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point. He cites Pew Research data that suggests Muslims will have a plurality — be the biggest individual group — by 2060.
This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.
Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.
More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.
Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).
The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.
He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.
Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.
How is Canada, or any nation for that matter, supposed to retain its heritage when it allows large numbers of people annually from completely different backgrounds who will soon outbreed their hosts?
Muslims maintain their religion and culture. Westerners give it all up in the name of being “diverse and tolerant”. But when push comes to shove, the stronger and more cohesive group will win, especially should civil war break out.
15. Time To Reverse This Trend
The government imposed closing of churches and other religious institutions is an attack on religion itself. None of this is necessary for public health. Instead, this is a show of force, and a show of how much contempt it holds in general for faith.
While the Quarantine Act and Emergency Act are seriously overreaching. There are ways to fight back. And the fighting back must happen. This “pandemic” is a thinly veiled attempt at seizing money and power, and was never about public safety.
Beyond this though: Christianity has been under attack in the West for a very long time. Most overtly, the population replacement agenda has led to the importation of large numbers of people (each year), who have nothing to do with Christianity. Worse still, Liberals and Conservatives (basically the same thing) see nothing wrong with bringing people — like Muslims — who are openly hostile to Christianity.
It’s beyond cliché at this point, but modern Conservatives conserve absolutely nothing. Preserving the spiritual foundations of the Western world is no exception. It’s disturbing how much pride they take in proclaiming that “we don’t play identity politics”, and that “We’re not socially conservative. We support freedom”.
It is group identity and cohesion that is the basis for a society. If Christians (or related denominations) don’t do it, they will be replaced by groups that are cohesive. Islam being an obvious example.
