Canada's Hope

 

The recent ruling by a federal court that the Trudeau government acted illegally in imposing the Emergency Act in 2022 gives a glimmer of hope that some human rights and some limits on the powers of the government of the day still exist in Canada. But it is only a glimmer—this ruling will be appealed to a higher court, and there is no reason for confidence that they will uphold it. Canadian courts have a bad reputation when it comes to defending human rights.

Jordan Peterson is right that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is no more substantial than the lofty guarantees of human rights in the Chinese constitution, or the old constitution of the USSR. Documents can say anything. By themselves they have no force. One needs to look at what governments actually do.

In Canada, we have no property rights. The government freezing of bank accounts under the arbitrarily imposed Emergency Act demonstrated this. And, of course, if it suits them, they do not recognize land title. Leaving aside seemingly endless “environmentalist” constraints on land use, they reserve the right to declare any property aboriginal land.

We have no mobility rights. The lockdowns demonstrated this. You could not board a plane or a bus without proof of vaccination; or at times at all. There are also endless restraints on the right to live and work in another province, due to arbitrary and onerous licensing requirements.

We have no freedom of speech. This has been true since the “Hate Laws” went on the books. The restrictions have become more aggressive almost monthly, up to and including compelled speech. 

We have no free press; we even have government censorship, like China, of the internet.

We have no right to peaceful assembly or to petition the government. This is what the Emergency Act was invoked to suppress. And participants are being prosecuted for the vague crime of “mischief.” Which could surely be construed to punish, Chinese Communist style, any act the government decided retroactively it did not like. The excuse that vital transportation corridors were being blocked by the protest is simply not true.

We have no freedom of religion. Merely quoting passages from the Bible may now be illegal. Any suggestion that homosexual sex is sinful, as all major religions teach, is a criminal offense. Churches are being burned down, with little reaction from authorities—or even with muted signs of approval.

We have no freedom of conscience. Doctors and nurses, for example, who have a moral objection to abortion or to assisted suicide, are legally required either to submit to patient wishes or at least to refer, making them accomplices in what they may consider grave sin.

We have no freedom of association. Various “affirmative action” programmes, for example, legislate whom we must hire or serve. And the lockdown and various government blacklists determine whom we must not associate with.

We have no equality. Aboriginal rights, for example, now being aggressively promoted, are in direct contravention of human equality. As are racial or gender quotas, and other such government initiatives. Like government programmes targeted specifically at funding “black” businesses. The “Gladue rule” is an unambiguous violation of equal protection under the law.

We have no right to life. Abortion is unrestricted and government funded in Canada. And now MAiD has been unleashed. Consent, granted, is still nominally required for the latter, but it is a perilously slippery slope. You can almost see the future. Homelessness has become an epidemic, governments seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Those who do not simply freeze to death are offered the friendlier option of assistance in dying. As we slide along this slippery toboggan run, one can foresee governments progressively cutting supports for the poor, distraught, or chronically ill, compelling them to “voluntarily” ask to be killed. 

This decision by the courts, if upheld may be our last chance to save Canadian from both tyranny and endemic poverty. 

Te alternative being a friendly invasion by the US, and no doubt the loss of Canadian independence, for whatever it is worth. Tucker Carlson, at least, is now openly calling for this.

And being cheered by huge crowds in Canada.

The Death of Canada

 

The recent decision by Justice Rouleau that the Trudeau government was justified in declaring the Emergency Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa last year demonstrates that the corruption of democracy in government extends to the judiciary. 

But this is not news. The Canadian courts, and the Canadian Supreme Court, have been partisan for decades, and have been eagerly legislating from the bench. There is an obvious flaw in the system: judges being appointed by the Prime Minister, they are political appointees. They are beholden to the government. 

Once, we relied on professional ethics to overcome this: in effect, the old code of chivalry. There was a gentleman’s agreement binding on the powerful not to abuse their power, and to protect the weak. It was the strength and durability of this code of chivalry, not found elsewhere, that allowed Europe to outpace the rest of the world from 1500 on. It seems that it was strongest in Britain, and Britain did best of all. It was all, ultimately, founded on Christianity: the premise that all men were brothers, and so had intrinsic dignity; that government was not the supreme authority; and that, on Christ’s example, he who would lead must be servant to all. 

“Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, ‘Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.’”

It is also this code of gentlemanly conduct that allows democracy to function. Without it, as in the Third World, those in power would hunt down and imprison or kill those out of power. We would simply shoot those we disagree with politically. We would not bother with Marquess of Queensbury rules.

And this code of chivalry has broken down. It is breaking down everywhere in the Christian world, but perhaps fastest in Canada, which has now gained a reputation for being especially “progressive.”

Beginning I think, with the rejection of “conventional morality” for the sake of more sexual pleasure in the 1950s. Then feminism rejecting the chivalric code of courtship. That slipped down the toboggan run to everyone doing as seemed advantageous to themselves, and feeling morally justified in it. You have power—why not use it?

After all, as Hitler argued in Mein Kampf, if anyone else had the power, they would use it against you.

All of which has now put the full stop and the hand brake on freedom and democracy in Canada. Freedom may return—although it is not evident how—but it no longer exists when the government can arrest anyone or freeze their assets if they feel threatened; and without recourse. It seems likely it will get worse now, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.

The one bright light is the convoy itself. If the government and judiciary cannot be expected to act honourably, the members and leadership of the convoy acted throughout with remarkable decency, public spirit, and restraint. They were a spontaneous model of what Canada is supposed to be: a community of peace, order, and good government.

How can it be, then, that the elites are depraved, while ordinary people are still moral and decent? At least a large part of the problem, surely, along with the inevitable temptations of power, has to be with our system of education. For this means that, the more formal education a Canadian has, these days, the less moral and tolerant he is. Our education system is doing the opposite of what an education system is for: creating good people and good citizens.

Because instead of instilling morality, our current system mocks it and demands transgression.

Providentially, then, our education system is in any case technologically obsolete. For that matter, any kind of ruling elite, corrupt or not, is probably technologically obsolete. Everyone can in principle now study online as and when needed. They can have their choice of instructors. 

And with expert systems, “experts” will find it harder to obfuscate and maintain a monopoly on information.

The Honking Torture

 

Xerxes makes the point that only those who experience prejudice know when it happens. The prejudiced will have no idea. And he adds that he is being discriminated against by the truckers who went to Ottawa.

He is wrong to say that only the victim of prejudice can recognize it. Prejudice is a thought. We cannot read minds. Therefore, only the perpetrator knows.

The perpetrator may not believe he is prejudiced, true. Prejudice is a logical fallacy; people make logical errors all the time.

But so do the supposed victims. Hans Christian Andersen illustrates the problem in his parable of The Princess and the Pea. The privileged, if they face the slightest hardship, will think it a grave injustice, and raise a loud lament. Those who are often discriminated against are likely to have become conditioned to their lot, or rarely dare complain.

Accordingly, we cannot accept the judgement of the person claiming to have experienced prejudice. We need clear evidence.

We see a good example in the recent Freedom Convoy. The judge in the bail hearings for either Tamara Lich or Pat King referred to the honking of truck horns as “torture,” justifying a criminal charge, denial of bail, and perhaps even the declaration of a national emergency. I have heard complaints about diesel fumes.

The comfortable judge and the other complainers do not realize that the sound of truck horns and the smell of diesel is daily life to the truckers. A mine or a typical factory floor is also smelly and noisy. If their work experience is indeed torture, they surely do have something to complain about. QED.

Conversely, the truckers may have had no idea honking or diesel fumes would be torture to folks in downtown Ottawa.

Who, it must be said, are the most privileged among us.

The Run on Canadian Banks

 

Trudeau has driven a stake through the heart of the Canadian economy and that means that international capital will be skeptical about trusting Canada as long as Trudeau is in power.

...this is not simply going to return to normal.

The War in the Desert Here

 

To my eyes, the conflict between the Freedom Convoy and the Canadian government is as clear an example as possible, in this fallen world, of a fight of good against evil.

And the way it has apparently ended is a moral lesson: in the short term, evil always wins.

This is because, unlike good, evil will pursue self-interest without restraints. In particular, the greatest power of evil is the lie. 

The lie can trick a large number of good people to support evil, because it is difficult for good people to believe others are lying. You can always cheat an honest man. These are the gullible good.

Others, many others, go along because it is easier to keep your head down—and the evil are invariably in power. “I’m all right, Jack!” These are the weak evil.

Because of this overall dynamic, the powers and principalities of this world are generally going to be evil. Any student of history must see this to be true. Except in exceptional times, the wicked rise to the top. The Bible, clearly enough, tells us so. The good are the salt under their feet.

On the other hand, the powers of this world suffer from the limits of the lie. This is why the arc of history indeed bends toward justice. Caught in a lie, like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, it all comes down about their ears. The previously deluded good people wake up, and with the heroic good, they form a majority. Once they are aroused and look unstoppable, the cowardly bad will swing behind them, and the house of cards comes down.

That, I suspect, is what the Freedom Convoy will have accomplished in the longer term. It was not strong enough yet. But by remaining resolutely peaceful, they have seized the moral high ground, and good people are going to wake up to who has been lying.

This is the strategy of Martin Luther King, of Gandhi, of Daniel O’Connell. Or of the early Christians.

The dawn is near.

Sadly, however, we are still in this fallen world. Trudeau may go soon, the Liberal Party may fall, and the heritage media may fade away. But soon enough, a new gang of bad people, piggybacking on the prestige hard-earned by the heroic truckers, will muscle to the front.

I think Pat King is already an example.

Trudeau: Just Kidding!

 

The timing of Trudeau’s announced cancellation of the Emergency Act suggests the main reason was that it was about to get voted down in the Senate.

The harm caused to the banking system might have been handled by simply eschewing this power and freeing all seized accounts. Reputedly, this was already happening.

But Trudeau’s announcement happened in the middle of the Senate debate, before the vote. It seems about the time it should have been clear to an inside observer how the vote was about to go.

Had the Senate voted down the measure, Trudeau would have been in a tough situation. He had called it a confidence vote in the Commons—lose the vote, and he would be obliged to resign. There is no such thing as a confidence vote in the Senate, but saying it is a confidence vote is saying the government does not believe it can govern without it. Therefore, there would be calls for Trudeau to resign, and it would look irregular if he did not; perhaps it would even become a constitutional crisis.

It would also support the argument that Trudeau’s actions up to that point were improper, if not illegal.

So pulling the Act may have dodged him a bullet.

Does all this harm Trudeau politically? It looks as though it won’t. I have seen the argument that, by withdrawing the Act so soon, Trudeau counters claims that he was power-hungry or overreacting. Since it never got to the vote in the Senate, people may never know if this was the real reason.

Senator Plett Speaks on the Emergency Act

 

My Letter to Senator Yussuff

 Dear Senator Yussuff:

This is to urge you to help vote down the government’s invocation of the Emergency Act. It is not necessary to protect the sovereignty or constitutional government of Canada against so far peaceful protests, and the precedent set now will be crippling if not fatal to Canadian democracy. If any future government can declare a state of emergency on a relatively trivial matter, and seize bank accounts and assets without recourse, no organized opposition to government can any longer form.

This could also be true of labour actions. The Emergency Act is in particular a betrayal of the working class.

The Senate is our last best hope to prevent this. Please demonstrate the relevance of the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought. I am sure history will remember you well for it.

Sincerely

Stephen K. Roney

Whoop Jug!

Trudeau just backed down.

Film at eleven.

I wonder: is this because he had inside knowledge he was about to lose the vote in the Senate?

Or might it have been a reaction to the awful press, especially internationally?

Or--quite likely--was it the banks raising the alarm at how he was destroying their credibility and their business.

 

A Self-Justification from the Vicar of Bray

 

My local MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, made a speech on the Emergency Act in which he explained that he opposed it, but was about to vote for it.

This was politics at its worst. He was trying to play both sides of the issue, to cover his own posterior portions.

He says he speaks “in the interest of disappointing everyone in my audience.” This is a politician talking. He is doing the exact opposite—trying to avoid alienating anyone.

C.S. Lewis noted that the essential virtue is courage. Because when the test comes, doing the right thing always takes courage. Doing the right thing only when it is easy is not morality.

Erskine-Smith knows he is doing the wrong thing, and seeks to justify himself.

“Some Conservative colleagues have made the case that we could have ended the illegal blockades if only we ended federal vaccine mandates. A Neville Chamberlain approach to pandemic management.”

This begins by comparing concerned fellow Canadians to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Not a good start.

It makes a difference that Hitler’s claims on Czechoslovakia were not legitimate.

Erskine-Smith neglects to consider whether the government policy of requiring vaccine mandates of truckers crossing the border, was an egregious violation of human rights, and/or unnecessary. He refuses to acknowledge that the protesters might have had a case to make.

More generally, is it wrong for government to bend to the will of a noisy minority?

Certainly, if they are right, certainly. An honourable and responsible government can admit error. Would Erskine-Smith have refused to ratify the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it meant giving in to such noisy protests by a minority? How abnout protests by Canada’s First Nations? Does that mean government must not change any of its Indian policies?

What should a government do if the protesters are simply wrong? Wrong about everything? For otherwise, compromise is possible.

A responsible government should then address the protesters, and explain why they cannot do as they wish. Then, so long as the protest is peaceful, they should let it continue. At worst, it will let off steam.

The government will protest that the demonstrators were shutting down businesses. They even want to sue the protesters on these grounds. This is profoundly dishonest. There was a street festival in downtown Ottawa; people were flocking from all over. The business opportunities were better than Winterfest. The protesters were demanding businesses reopen, and commerce resume. The government required then to shut down.

“we should proceed cautiously as we lift measures that have helped to save lives.”

This is a red herring. The evidence is unclear on whether the lockdowns or mandates have saved lives, or cost lives. Other jurisdictions have seen fit to raise all restrictions. The truckers were not making an unreasonable demand.

“everyone has the right to peaceful protest. But that right does not extend to blocking highways and bridges. It doesn’t extend to the intimidation, harassment, threats, and the endless and deafening noise we’ve seen in our national capital.”

Erskine-Smith would have a point if the protesters were blocking important highways or bridges. They were not. The Ambassador Bridge was a separate protest, and had already been cleared.

If some Ottawa protesters were guilty of intimidation, harassment, or threats, Erskine-Smith has an obligation to present the evidence. Many reports have it that the demonstration was a model of peaceful protest. There were cameras everywhere throughout: if there were any egregious examples of intimidation, harassment, or threats, we have a right to see them.

If there were isolated incidents, blaming the protest or “the protesters” for this is the fallacy of hasty generalization, or prejudice. This is the root of racism.

“The endless and deafening noise” no doubt refers to truckers honking their horns. Protests are always noisy. That is the whole point: to be heard. What is excessive must be a matter of opinion. The few people living near Wellington Street may have found truck horns too loud. This may not have seemed to to truckers, accustomed to them. Or the working class: try the noise level in a mine, or on a factory floor.

In any event, an injunction against honking was sought, and granted, and I hear generally observed. Any trucker sounding his horn could have been prosecuted. 

The claim that truckers were sounding their horns at every hour of the day or night is certainly false: truckers need to sleep too.

Some locals were reputedly complaining of diesel fumes. Eeek! Welcome to the world of the working classes.

“These are crimes and they are quite obviously crimes.”

He has to say this precisely because they are not obviously crimes. The organizer of the protest, Tamara Lich, has been charged with ”inciting mischief.” This is a vague and subjective charge. It remains to be seen whether it will hold up in court.

“We can’t paint every protester with the same brush. But we can judge people by the company they keep.”

Erskine-Smith is painting every protester with the same brush, and trying to get away with it by claiming he is not doing it. Typical politician-speak.

When we are speaking of a crowd at a protest, this is obviously not true. Nobody has any control over who else is there.

This is an unsubtle example of guilt by association.

 “we should never platform the language of treason, medical experiments, the Nuremberg Code, or support for white supremacy – all of which we saw on our democracy’s doorstep.”

These claims are oddly vague; probably because clarity would reveal their falsity. He means, I think, charges that the government is treasonous, is conducting medical experiments, is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. But he surely does not mean the government supports white supremacy. Lumping them together like this seems to be to give the impression that it is the protesters doing these things, not the government.

Either way, I have not seen any obvious examples of this, having watched many live streams and videos of the protesters. It is as though Erskine-Smith fears being accused of this, rather than that the protesters are doing this.

But even if such charges were there, they are covered by the right to free speech, guaranteed in our constitution. In a free democracy, one may accuse the government of treason, medical experiments, or being in violation of the Nuremberg Code. To “deplatform” such speech, to silence it, is totalitarian.

“Encouraging lawlessness and emboldening anti-government, anti-democratic voices does a disservice to our country”

Erskine-Smith is begging the question. The protesters were claiming that the government is acting unlawfully, violating the constitution; that is the essence of their complaint. They believed they were acting within the law, and took pains to remain within the law. 

On the other hand, invoking the Emergency Act is a perfect example of acting lawlessly. It suspends the laws.

Being “anti-government” is not relevant. The Conservative Party or the NDP are also “anti-government.” Having the right to be anti-government is the essence of a free society.

It is true that any protest against a democratically elected government is “anti-democratic.” But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also anti-democratic. Democracy can easily become dictatorship of the majority. That is what happened in Nazi Germany. We therefore have protections for minorities. One is the right to peaceful protest.

 “no matter how much hatred you have for your opponents.”

This is tasteless. The government has declared the protesters “mad,” “a fringe minority,” “Nazis,” “racists,” “white supremacists,” “Islamophobic,” misogynist,” “homophobic,” “insurrectionists,” “taking up space,” “unacceptable,” and so on. By comparison, what division have the protesters fostered? Or the Conservative Party?

This is the “I know you are, but what am I?” school of political debate. You may remember it from the Grade Three schoolyard.

“The failure to enforce the law in Ottawa, the acquiescence to occupation, emboldened similar blockades across the country.”

This works only if the concerns of the protesters were frivolous. Erskine-Smith has not established this. If they are serious, this is going to have the opposite effect. Silencing people who feel they are not being listened to is not a solution, but a way of escalating tensions.

When the authorities threatened to shut down the Ottawa protest, I predicted the Ambassador Bridge protest on this basis. It was “Whack-a-mole.” Now, as soon as the Canadian protests are suppressed, we have a larger convoy forming in the US. Who knows what longer-range dire consequences we will see in Canada? Probably a Western separatist movement; certainly deeper social divisions; hopefully not violence in the streets.

Erskine-Smith knows this. I pointed it out to him, citing historical examples. He is in denial, or just consciously lying.

Calling the Ottawa protest an “occupation” is also prejudicial language, “poisoning the well.” It was not, by dictionary definition.

“The specific section requires there be ‘activities in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective."

It’s obvious enough that the latter element is met, as warped as the ideological objectives may be.”

Erskine-Smith again simply asserts this for the good reason that he has no argument; it is not true. The protests were, many observers attest, a model or peaceful protest. There were no injuries. There was no property damage. 

Of course the protesters had a political aim. In a free and democratic society, everyone does.

“We know that dangerous and extremist elements are embedded within these protests and blockades. In Coutts, for example, we saw conspiracy to commit murder charges, with two of the accused connected to a far-right extremist group. We also saw the police seize a cache of guns and body armour.”

We do not know this. The guns seized in Coutts were not found in the convoy. Their true significance awaits court proceedings. The Coutts blockade itself was not connected with the Ottawa group. It disbanded peacefully. 

Some guns allegedly found in a farmhouse in Southern Alberta do not justify conclusions on something happening on the other side of the country. To suggest it does looks paranoid. Someone is not rational here. Is the obvious remedy to give them unlimited power?

“In Ottawa, we saw major intimidation of local residents, and threats against the police if they enforced the law.”

Here again, Erskine-Smith needed to specify what he means and give examples. Then we can decide whether his claims are credible. There were cameras and smartphones everywhere. If any of this happened, on any large scale, he and the government should have lots of evidence to show the public. So far, I have seen nothing. “Threats against the [heavily armed] police” by unarmed demonstrators, even if they happened, do not sound serious.

“the government has not clearly articulated which ground it relies on here.”

This is as much as to admit that invoking the Emergency Act is illegal.

The Charter of Rights “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.” To impose the Emergency Act, the government must demonstrate that it is justified. Erskine-Smith points out that they have not done so. They are simply saying “trust us.”

“When we look at the illegal blockades, and the negative impact they wrought on so many lives, there’s a fair argument that they meet the definition of a national emergency, so long as we understand capacity to mean both whether a province could act in theory as well as the reality of their action.”

“Capacity” means ability, not will. Erskine-Smith’s definition is illegitimate. 

Not to mention, there are no ongoing blockades. No emergency. The provinces cleared them—demonstrating both the capacity and the will.

The case against the Emergency Act could not be clearer.

Erskine-Smith goes on to cite the supposed need for new laws to deal with “crowdfunding for illegal domestic activities.” If so, this is not done by invoking the Emergency Act. But, as Viva Frei (David Freiheit) points out, Freedom Convoy 2022 was registered with the federal government as a non-profit to collect funds on GoFundMe. It is dishonest to claim now that the funding was for “illegal activities.” The federal government certified that it was not.

Erskine-Smith has as much as said that the Emergency Act is illegal. And he has said he will vote for it anyway. Because nothing matters so much as his political future.

Are Bank Accounts Being Unfrozen?

 

It looks as though the Canadian government is backing down on freezing people’s bank accounts. Although different official sources are saying opposite things. As if our government is in chaos.

Not surprising: freezing people’s bank accounts is and will be devastating to Canadian and international confidence in the Canadian banking system. With serious long-term economic conseque3nces.

Was our government so incompetent they apparently did not realize this? Were they so hysterical they did not care?

A Good Summary to Date

 From Natural Selections:

Atrocities don’t start with the visibly atrocious. If they started with what was visible and horrible, people wouldn’t let them happen. If they began in an obvious way, they would not, by and large, result in atrocities. No, all too often, atrocity starts by offering treats to some part of the population. People who receive the treats are grateful for them, because who doesn’t like treats? People thus sated can then more easily ignore the fact that not everyone is getting treats.

Then, once the asymmetrical distribution of treats begins, it is easier to maintain the asymmetry by blaming those who don’t receive treats. Those people don’t deserve treats. Those people are dirty. They are sources of disease. They are non-compliant. They are, in the end, the other. They are not us. If they were us, they too would get treats. Ipso facto.

Read the whole thing here.

Jason Kenney Speaks Plainly

 

Write Your Senator

 

Passing on a suggestion by Maxime Bernier that Canadians write a senator urging they oppose the invocation of the Emergency Act. 

Find a senator from your province here:

https://sencanada.ca/en/senators

I think there is a real chance this will work.

I believe MPs and Senators take letters from constituents seriously. It is their window on public sentiment, and they generally believe they are there to represent their constituents.

In the Commons, Trudeau was able to declare the vote a matter of confidence, and force members of the NDP and Liberal parties to vote the party line or face a quick election in which they would not be allowed to run--in other words, lose their jobs and income.

This does not apply to the Senate. They are appointed, and cannot be threatened in this way. Officially, there is not even a Liberal caucus; they are supposed to be independent. They should be able to vote their conscience, their constituents, and their best judgement.

I suspect there is also an incentive for them to vote the measure down. The Senate's relevance is often questioned. This would help allay those doubts.

So if you are Canadian, gentle reader, by all means give it a go.

https://sencanada.ca/en/senators

What Trudeau Is Costing Us

 

Among the already visible or likely consequences of Justin Trudeau’s handling of the Freedom Convoy are likely to be 

A destruction of the historic Canadian respect for the police. This will cost us a lot of money and a lot of strife from now on. 

A lack of trust in the banking system: the Canadian banking system used to be one of the most solid in the world, surviving the 2008 crash barely scathed. An unstable banking system will be a serious drag on the economy and on foreign investment. 

A serious tarnishing of our reputation abroad, and of our ability to speak on the world stage. 

Very likely a major boost to Western separatist movements. Possibly a boost to Quebec separatism as well.

A crippling of democracy. If opposition voices must fear having their assets seized, no opposition can organize. 

Trudeau is also deliberately fomenting strife among ethnic groups.

A general disrespect for the rule of law. As Confucius pointed out, if the government itself does not follow the law, the people cannot be made to.

A general distrust of the media. With no neutral voices, nobody knows any longer whom to trust.

Continuing damage to the economy and the livelihoods of Canadians by persisting in the lockdowns and mandates. Trudeau is retaining them when other countries, and some provinces, are dropping them. He seems to be doing this out of spite.

The immense public expense of suppressing the protest, which might have been dispersed at no cost, and much sooner, by negotiation and compromise.

Just the guy we want to give virtually unlimited power, right?

What am I missing?

Someone Is Triggered

 

This clip illustrates the fact that a large proportion of the population, especially the elite, are insane.

A large portion of the population, and of the elite, actually see common working people as foreign and dangerous. Their views are “unacceptable,” and must not be heard, whatever they might turn out to be.

This explains their horror of “populism.” This explains Trump Derangement Syndrome. This explains why they see ordinary Canadians as being in “occupation” of their own capital. That term refers to a foreign military power. This is why they consider a series of parking violations a national emergency threatening the country itself.

I realize it is not some conspiracy against the public—it is not as rational as that. They are terrified. They are hysterical, and are acting hysterically. They are paranoid. Otherwise they would not be so vindictive, so obviously emotional about matters.

Paranoia is caused by a guilty conscience. They know they have been getting away with some grave crime, and fear a reckoning.

The reckoning will come. 

If it does not come from without, it will come from within. We are almost already seeing it. Their own conscience will ultimately require it. Dostoyevsky laid out the mechanics in Crime and Punishment. But they may cause much suffering on the way down. We have seen genocides.

Paranoia, and a guilty conscience, generally obliges the guilty party to reveal their fear of their own sin by projecting it on others. 

Chillingly, the elite sees themselves as comparable to Hitler.

The Vote Was Yea

 

The position of the NDP on the Emergency Act does not make sense. Not just that it is founded the lie that the convoy has called for the overthrow of the government, and  the lie that is was violet. But it also does not seem to make political sense. They keep saying that the Emergency Act is made necessary by a failure of leadership. But if there has been such a failure of leadership, it obviously makes no sense to give the same leader more powers.

Why identify themselves with a failing Prime Minister?

The Emergency Act may be popular at the moment, but anyone who knows history can predict that it is going to become a lot less popular soon. The more so as the protesters have remained peaceful, and the government has acted harshly.

And they are turning against the working class. Not just that the truckers are working class, and express widespread working class sentiments. Declaring the Emergency Act against a peaceful protest or even a peaceful blockade sets a bad precedent for union action in the future.

For many years, the NDP has not been the party of the working class, but of petty government officials—teachers, especially. But some of their members do represent working class ridings, and they stand to lose them at the next election.

They also reduce their profile as an alternative to the Liberals, when they were already having some trouble making the distinction. Why vote for the NDP, who have no chance of power, if their platform is too like that of the Liberals, who do have a chance at power?

The obvious explanation is that the government has declared this a confidence vote. If it goes down, they will try to call an election. The NDP does not have the funds to fight an election.

I feel there is also an element of paranoia, in the NDP and in the Liberals. They fear the working class. This comes with a guilty conscience.

I believe the government cannot whip the Senate. They need not fear an election, and there is no official Liberal caucus. Senators should be free to vote their conscience. It may appeal to many to rise to the occasion and justify the Senate’s existence.

Maxime Bernier Interviews Brian Peckford

 

This Post May Soon Be Superseded by Events.

 

I was unpleasantly surprised to see Justin Trudeau, at a press conference this morning, not say he was going to withdraw the Emergency Act. It is obviously no longer necessary, and it has obviously already been abused.

If it goes through, I fear the only way to restore faith in Canadian democracy and Canadian institutions is to remove Trudeau from office as quickly as possible. This will be a job for the Liberal caucus, or, failing that, the House, through a no confidence motion. Ordinarily, one should go no further; if former leaders are prosecuted, this becomes an incentive to try to seize power instead of leaving office when voted out. However, some step must be taken to ensure that the Emergency Act is never used capriciously again, or abused in the course of its use. 

Perhaps Parliament could swiftly pass a new law making improperly evoking or using the Emergency Act  itself a criminal offense—the offense of tyranny.

It must be clear that the government cannot seize or freeze assets in the absence of a specific crime, and never without a court order. With penalties for doing so.

It should also be made illegal to employ police without visible identification—numbered badge and, ideally, face visible. Otherwise it becomes impossible for the public to hold individuals to account, freeing them to abuse power. Without such ID, gangs or insurgents can pretend to be police. And the public has a right to suspect the government is employing foreign mercenaries or foreign troops.

If the NDP supports the Emergency Act, Jagmeet Singh should also be removed from his position. But this can only be done by the NDP itself. If they do not, they will no doubt pay the price at next election.

I do not say that any of this will happen—only that if it does not, Canadian democracy and civil peace is doomed.

Will the Emergency Act Actually Pass?

 

I assumed that Justin Trudeau had solid assurance of support before he announced the Emergency Act. But the blowback seems to have gotten severe. Premiers are speaking against it. Foreign media are mocking him. Blanchet was breathing fire today in the Commons. It will not play well in Quebec.

Jagmeet Singh seems to have gotten cold feet, and now says he “may” drop his support. My own MP, Liberal, responded to my concern by saying he was examining the arguments to see if it is justified—surely implying he might vote against it.

In the meantime, the objective justification for it gets weaker. The border blockade at Windsor is over. The border blockade at Coutts is over. I hear the blockade at Denison is over. I hear the blockade at Surrey is over. What exactly is the emergency?

Yet Trudeau still sounded determined in Question Period today. 

The further he pushes this, the worse it may look for him.

If he withdraws it now without a vote, having been so insistent that it was needed, it looks as though he overreacted. But even worse if he puts it to the vote, and loses. Either way, he looks foolish, reckless, and panicked.

We shall see. We may see Generalissimo Trudeau in a few days, Or we may be looking at the end of his premiership.