It
wasn't too long ago that the mainstream media in Canada bashed PM
Stephen Harper for attacking our freedom. This message was adopted by
millions of young Canadians, who could repeat claims such as "Harper is
silencing journalists" in any debate on the matter. Headline after
headline questioned how our most sacred value could be given up,
especially regarding freedom of the press. He's gone, so where are we
now? The World Press Freedom Index, which ranked Canada 8th in the world in 2015, now ranks us in 22nd, and
we didn't fall because other countries are doing better. The media
outlets that had gotten the youth riled up when Harper had us at 8th
place ... are now relatively silent.
In
fact the tone from mainstream outlets about freedom, which
was apparently the most desirable trait to have in a society has
flipped. According to the many media sources, it's now less important to
allow in a society and simply "used as a tool to allow hate speech".
Global News recently put out an article
for Canadian citizens on how to "report hate speech". Nothing was
written to distinguish it from undesirable speech, unsurprisingly.
Suggested actions to report dialogue to police and others to get it
censored were described in detail with tricks such as appealing to a
large community to ensure a mob works together to silence it.
Canadians, when polled almost always state that freedom is their strongest and most important value, but
the
multi-faceted right is being chipped at from all angles simultaneously
at a worrying pace. M103 was a motion which sparked the conversation
about being able to criticize or dislike Political Islam.
Although only 14% of Canadians supported the motion - Liberals pushed
it through. There are other articles that will more thoroughly explain
the debate, but I'll give the highlights. The motion contained wording
that asked for a "whole of government approach to eliminate
islamophobia". The issue is that "islamophobia" according to the
definition especially relates to a dislike of political islam, not
discrimination against muslims which is already illegal. Liberals
responded to criticism with "the motion is about protecting muslim
people from discrimination not Islam the ideology from criticism".
Conservatives than said "well we are both on the same page about
discrimination being wrong, so can we change the wording to more
accurately describe your explanation?" to which the Liberals refused for
an unknown reason.
In
the case of M103, not only was freedom of speech put under challenge
and limitations, but the primary argument from the anti-M103 side was
completely ignored. It get's worse though. While M103 was a motion,
meaning they were funding a commission which would investigate legally
binding laws to enforce their findings, actual laws are already bring
passed such as C16. C16 is described by many in the media elite as
"protection from discrimination against transgendered people".
Mainstream news outlets have described opponents to the bill as bigots
who hate transgendered people and want to be able to discriminate
against them. The wording of the motion states that “This enactment
amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender
expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination”. If that
was it, and context was not important, there wouldn't be any
significant portion of the population against the bill. Context, is
everything. In the legal world however, context and related laws are
extremely important.
When C16 was introduced the government website had a link to the Ontario Human Rights Commission,
stating that the bill would be interpreted by policy precedence from
them. The government has not revoked the claim, although in attempt to
mitigate the scandal, the link was taken down. Why was this alarming?
The OHRC states "refusing to refer to a person by their preferred pronoun constitutes as a form of harassment".
There are unlimited preferred pronouns one may demand to be called.
Traditionally titles were voluntarily used such as calling a doctor Dr.
X, Canadian law has shifted to legally enforce the use of any pronoun
for any reason. Some pronouns which have been demanded to be used by
university students are: "jam, xe, ve, zij, and þau (not a b, that's an
icelandic symbol þ "
Many
argue that a government that increases spending, is one that removes
freedom from the citizens. The more the government increases taxes and
allows a few elites within itself to decide how to spend the citizens
money, that is a control mechanism. Canada has moved towards being a
country where a few elites in the government decide what to do with
"Canadian money" rather than allowing the citizens to spend their money
as they see fit. Criticism has arisen around the new carbon tax which
has said unfairly targets low-income Canadians who have to spend a
higher % of their income on heating their home, driving to work and
buying food at the grocery store. As new taxes remove families ability
to chose their own homes and food, the government gains tremendous
control over them by supplying their own controlled social housing and
food programs.
Regardless
of where you stand on the United States current political situation,
it's important to understand why they value their constitution in a
global climate that suffered from rulers abusing their powers - and
still are. The founding fathers in the United States understood that
tyrannical governments would always assume power by controlling speech
first, then physical control after. In countless military coup's around
the world, radio stations are almost always seized by the new
government. After the ability to control communication, the ability to
defend oneself is almost always restricted immediately after. The 2nd
amendment is second, because it ensured that even if a tyrannical
government in the United States controlled speech, they would not be
able to take away Americans ability to defend themselves. Nazi Germany
did not simply go door-to-door to take Jewish people away to
concentration camps. Laws were passed to control the press, while strict
gun control measures were imposed. For the record I am not saying that
anybody in modern day is comparable with the Nazi Party in Germany, I am
simply using the most understood historical guideline of how to control
a population, even if the intentions are vastly different.
Taking
away freedom from a population is useless without indoctrination,
people debatably crave freedom and as countless revolutions in human
history have shown they will join with their families and communities to
regain independence. While attacks on families have been historically
implemented by the Liberal Party of Canada to take aboriginal youth from
their families in order to control the population, no outrageous laws
to control the family unit have been suggested ... until now. Ontario
has passed Bill 89, which allows the government to access how committed to LGBT parents are, and if the test is failed, kids will be taken into government control. While
the government has stated that "gender identity is fluid and
contextual" if parents attempt to shape their child's identity
against the governments will - the government will enforce their own
context ... a foster home.
If
those in power in Canada are actively looking to continue
increasing their control over the citizens, it is only reasonable to
assume that stricter measures will be employed to take away
Canadians ability to protect themselves. Propaganda has started being
disseminated among the public in such a way that would imply legislation
is on the horizon. A widely distributed study
with the headline "One youth shot every day in Ontario" was spread
through CBC, The Globe and Mail, The Huffington Post and others. There
are lot's of breakdowns that debunk the propaganda
in the article online, but those have significantly smaller reach and
don't have access to tax dollars. Here are some of the highlights of
instances that intentionally mislead Canadians to stir up emotional
responses and a climate for increased government control.
1. Youth's in the study includes adults aged 24. This is in contrast with Ontario's youth justice system which stops at age 17.
2. The definition of "firearms" included paintball guns, airsoft toys, slingshots and BB guns were also included.
3.
"Are shot" is used in the headline but the study is actually about
injuries. Needing to get an icepack for a paintball bruise counts.
Police shootings are also lumped in.
With
this clearly visible trend of the government amassing power over the
citizens, anyone can see that the ability to defend oneself is next on
the chopping block, regardless of your political leanings. While new
laws to restrict things such as firearms have not yet been released as
of June 7th (in the afternoon), since I started researching and writing
this article the Liberals have stated they will be looking to bring back
a registry for long-gun owners. I'm sure I'll have a lot to say, in the
next coming weeks about that, you can follow along on the Narrative Facebook Page if you're interested.
Although I already chose the title Freedom is Fading in Canada,
and I think the alliteration is too good to pass up on, perhaps I was
understating the rate or erosion given this new development.
---------------------------
Well written and interesting...
What is disturbing is how many people are silent...
What is disturbing is how many people are silent...
No comments:
Post a Comment