The Evils of Tory Rhetoric

 

Natty Nate.

My MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, has now reversed his earlier, qualified support of Joel Lightbound. He claims his comments were “torqued” by the media—although what I read were his own tweets. He now blames the Conservatives for any verbal escalation of the current trucker protests:

“he's right that we all need to stand down on divisive rhetoric. This is particularly true for my Conservative colleagues.”

He thereby ignores as comparatively trivial such examples from his leader, Justin Trudeau, as are quoted by Bill Maher in the clip. Conrad Black writes “The defamation and the attempt to incite public hostility against [the protesters] was contemptible demagogy.”

So what were the Conservative insults that were so much worse? Erskine-Smith says, obliquely, “we should not platform or engage the language of treason, medical experiments, Nuremberg Code, etc.”

Worse indeed. So much worse that one must not just never say this; one must deplatform and silence anyone who does.

Oddly, however, he cites no one saying these things, and so far as I have seen online—and I have been following events, especially in Parliament, pretty closely—no Conservative members have accused the government using such terms. 

Since nobody prominent has even made the claims, it would appear that they are terrible only in the sense that it would be terrible if anyone did say them. And so terrible that Erskine-Smith will not himself actually say them, but seems to refer to them obliquely. And even if they have not said them, the Conservatives COULD say them. Which actually implies that they are true. 

It seems important, then, to find out just what he means. 

Treason is plain enough. One can only be concerned that the Liberals are, in their own minds, open to that charge. Are they, for example, colluding with the US government to suppress the protests? Who else might he mean? China?

What is the Nuremberg Code?

The Nuremberg Code, I find, is a set of standards for medical experimentation. It was created in 1947 as a reaction to Nazi experiments on humans. As summarized by the British Medical Journal, 

“Amongst other requirements,  this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject.  The principle  of  voluntary informed consent protects the right of  the individual to control his own  body.”

Obviously, whether or not they are experimental, vaccine mandates violate this requirement for voluntary informed consent, and the principle of the right of the individual to control his own body.

And it is arguable that the vaccines, approved only for emergency use, are still experimental.

The Nuremberg Code is not a Canadian law. But the optics look pretty bad for the government. I suspect it might also be used persuasively in a lawsuit: the government may abridge basic human rights, like security of the person, only in situations demonstrably necessary for a free and democratic society. Violation of the Nuremberg Code is persuasive evidence that this standard has not been met.

It all might be hell to p[ay for the government, not just in present political terms, but in the courts for years to come.

Thanks to Nathaniel Erskine-Smith for this tip.