Comprehensive Guide to Political Left and Right ideologies.

leftright

Many people get confused now, and even don’t recognize the differences in the left and right ideological systems.    They will even deny the existence of certain radical portions of their ideologies.

This is my guide to the left and right political ideologies.   I have created this in hopes to educate and help people understand.

Left.

The left is usually or used to be solely Liberal.   In Canada Liberals were somewhat respected even by those on the right.    There was some ideological differences but overall they got along.    Then the liberal party at some point got hijacked by what is now called progressives.     This will explain the differences between the two groups, and will explain how progressives in the left are not the same as a true liberal, albeit, they will appear similar.

Liberal Ideals.

1.  Free Speech.   

Liberals like free speech.  Even those views that they don’t agree with, they will respect the rights of those speaking it.    Generally most liberals will agree to this.   The ONLY exception is what they consider hate speech.   Which in the original sense (in Canada back in the 90s) was any speech that incited violence to a minority or minority group.      An example of this would be telling people “Kill all fags!”   Not “I believe fags should be killed”.      The 1st is a call to violence.   The 2nd is an opinion.   Liberals back in the 90s, didn’t like the hate speech laws being made but knew it was the only way to help gay people who were being killed, beaten and ignored by police and society.     It had it’s place in time but should have been erased from the criminal code a decade ago.

2.  Freedom of association. 

Liberals agree that this is a human right and we all have the right to associate with whomever we want.   This includes, the freedom to gather and protest.   Whenever and where-ever that protesting is needed.

3.  Equality.

This is the one that is important.   Liberals believe in equality of opportunity.   This means that everyone should have the equal opportunities.   For example,  Jessica is a black woman who is being interviewed for a job.   She is competing with a white man, and an  Asian man.     Their employer who is liberal will consider all three candidates based on their experience, and qualifications.    Their gender, sexuality, race have nothing to do with the hiring process.      All are equal in the opportunity for the position.

 

4. RACISM

Liberals are against racism and tend not to see people by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

Liberals are more closer to the middle, but still left.     They tend to be tolerant and open to other views.   They show compassion and courtesy to even those they disagree with.

 

Now lets talk about Progressives.

Progressives are considered to be far left by many.   Their views are not based on liberal views but really on race, gender, sexuality.

1.   Freedom of Speech.

Progressives do not like freedom of speech.  They say they do but want limits on that speech. The only speech they like is speech that they like.  They want any speech that “offends” them to be banned.  They can’t ban speech, so they try to stop people from hearing the speech.     They love the current hate speech laws due to the fact the current hate speech laws in Canada are vague.    Here is the portion that describes hate speech in the criminal code of Canada.

“Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offense to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, and willfully promote hatred against an “identifiable group.”

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

The Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions: the act of promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation, and inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place. Online communications that advocate genocide or willfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

Under section 320(1) of the Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. Such authority extends to all computer systems located within Canada. To date, however, only one case has been successfully brought under that provision, in the province of Quebec. [2]”

What is vague is not the inciting of violence.  Everyone agrees to that.  What is in dispute is the rest.   Which I may add was easily added later by lawmakers silently.

The second part makes it illegal to say “I believe fags should die. ” .    The other parts make it so you can’t even write it.   Or share it.   My blog could be considered a hate crime if a progressive was to see it and report it.

2.  Freedom of Association.

Progressives do not like it when people they don’t agree with gather.    We have many examples of this.     The protests when men’s rights advocates gather to speak on men’s issues.     The protests and riots when conservative speakers go to a university to speak to people who voluntarily go to hear what they have to speak.   Their aim to stop people from attending.

3.  Equality.

The typical progressive wants equality of outcome.   Not just opportunity.     The difference of outcome is explained easily by the wage gap myth.   They expect the same money that men make, as the result of a lifetime.    They don’t understand, either by willful ignorance or by simply not being able to use reason and logic.     Women have been proven via the wage gap that they make different decisions in life.   They choose more humanitarian careers like in health fields nursing, health care, etc.   They dominate in certain fields but at the same time those fields pay less.    They choose these fields because of they get the ability to have more time off, for health, family, vacations etc.    Men on the other hand, will sacrifice more to be able to advance in their careers.   So they will take more dangerous jobs like policing, firefighters, military,  construction, oil rig worker, miner etc.   These jobs are higher risk for loss of life so they pay more than say a nurse.

The progressive doesn’t agree this is the reason for a gap.   They can’t.   They think that women should get the same pay as men period.   So the grand overview of the wage gap is their dragon to slay.    People who use reason and logic understand the differences and why this is wrong.

So to give an example:    Linda works for an Software company.   She was hired at the same time as Bob.  They both started in this company and have been working there a year.    Both started at the same wage.     Linda, decides to take time off to have baby.    She gets a year maternity leave.   During that time while she was away Bob worked hard, worked overtime and gained a raise and a promotion, while keeping up with the current technological advances which helped the company.     Linda comes back to work and finds she is out of date with her technological knowledge and needs more training before she can get back to work.    After a month of retraining she is back to working what she was doing.    However, now that she has a child, she rarely is able to work overtime, and in some cases has to ask her boss to leave early.      Bob doesn’t.    He is still working overtime and works hard.     Linda, gets a call and has to leave work in the middle of the day because her child is sick with the flu and has to go home to take care of the child.     Bob continues working, getting in a project ahead of schedule.     Linda comes back to work a few days later.

Over the course of their careers, Linda has had 2 kids, took 2 years off for maternity, had more time off for family vacations, sick days for the kids, her health etc.    Bob, sacrificed and worked a lot of overtime, earned more money and took less time off, and was more of a benefit to the company and so earned top dollar for his salary.

This is what progressives don’t agree with.   They believe that Linda should have been paid the same as Bob over the course of her lifetime career because she has been with the company the same length of time and had the same job to start with.    A progressive will see that Linda was discriminated against because she was not given the same opportunities as Bob during the career.

4. RACISM

Progressives will divide everyone by race, gender, sexuality, etc.     They see through the lens of victim status on these features of people.   Not on Character.   They label people racist who disagree with their views.   Will conflate genuine concerns over the religion of Islam as racist and will even call people racist for citing facts about communities because it points out a negative issue with that particular community.

Meanwhile they happily will be racist themselves, to white people.   They don’t see white people as a race but as the oppressor.     They will say “Kill all white people” and not understand that is a racist statement.      The ONLY people that are racist you see, are white people.  Therefor they aren’t and can’t be.     Even white progressives will say anti white things to white people.

They will get upset if a white person is proud of being white and what white people have accomplished in their history.   Like putting a man on the moon.     To them, white people should not be proud of the accomplishments, but be ashamed of the bad parts of history, like slavery.

Which brings up another part of the progressive ideology.   Slavery.   They will tell you that white people are the cause of slavery, even though this is not true.  They will ignore history and even attempt a rewrite of history to suit their agenda.

Slavery was NOT started by white people,  in fact no one knows who came up with the idea because it was practiced for thousands of years.    All Races participated.    In fact it still exists in some parts of the world.   White people were the first to STOP.     The American civil war was NOT about freeing slaves but over the establishment of the federal reserve and the central bank.   Lincoln, who was a slave owner himself, who had several children with his female slaves, had in fact garnered the support of black slaves by offering them freedom if they joined his army and that didn’t happen until he was losing the war.

The North Altantic Slave trade was not white people going into Africa to gather up black people.   No.  This is the part that progressives will devoutly  ignore and fight against.    The Tribes of Africa would raid other tribes and take prisoners.   The would invade neighboring countries and get slaves for themselves.    They had white slaves, black slaves, asians etc.     The Tribal leaders in Africa would SELL those people to the Slavers.  Not by threat, but in trade for things they wanted and gold.     Asians as well would raid other nations and take prisoners and sell them as slaves, to other countries and as well as white slavers.

If you hear a progressive you would think that it was ONLY white people enslaving people.    It wasn’t but they will adamantly deny the other races part in that because it undermines their ideological views.

5. Discrimination.

Progressives will happily tell you they don’t discriminate but will want policies that directly discriminate against men.  Particularly white men.    They will want “safe spaces” for women, and minorities and fight against safe spaces for men.   Especially on university campus.

One example would be a university in the USA where progressive students wanted one day without white people on campus.    One professor who was white said no, that it was discriminatory to demand this.     The students in outrage at being told this, protested , threatened the professors life and he had so many threats that he was forced into leaving the school for safety reasons.

Another example would be another professor who called for the genocide of white people, and that was perfectly tolerable by the faculty, staff and students.

I would also add in this topic of racism and discrimination that a progressive see’s nothing wrong with groups that support Hamas, (Palestine), who want to kill all Jews.   Islamic extremists for killing gay people, oppressing women.

The reason being is they are being tolerant of another religion, culture etc.  So child marriage, child rape, raping of women,  female genital mutilation is okay because it is a “cultural” thing.

In Canada, they will go as far as to think it is okay to allow Isis fighters back into Canada without any kind of punishment.      Just today there was a news report of a Canadian doctor who was on the Gaza strip that was killed when a group of “protesters” had tried to climb the wall and blow up the wall.    So the Israel troops fired on them.    The doctor got hit by a stray bullet and died.

The progressives all day have been spouting hatred for the Jews and spouting anti Jewish rhetoric.   Twenty years ago, those people would have been arrested for hate speech.   Today, they are allowed because the progressives believe they are not being racist, bigoted because they believe they are right.   Brown people (muslims) are an oppressed people by the nasty jewish people who are (white).

Progressives are the ALT LEFT of the left.  They are so authoritarian and so extreme that they run on par with KKK, and Nazis.   While fail to recognize they are that bad.

NDP

I’m going to be honest, the NDP are not a major player.   They tend to be Liberal Lite and don’t like progressives, but they themselves will back progressives on occasion.   They aren’t really that special but think they are.

The NDP fall between liberals and the progressives.    Middle left I would call them.

Now….

THE RIGHT!

Conservatives.

Conservatives used to be hugely dominated by the religious.  Mainly the Christians.   Back before education on homosexuality etc, it was a deeply sexist, and homophobic party with an ideology to match.

However today in the modern world, many real liberals have flocked under the conservative banner to stop progressives in the next election.

Back when Harper had been elected as PM (Conservative), he ran on a platform to stop gay marriage.    Fortunately he lost thanks to the supreme court.    And as a result the party stopped fighting against gay rights.     Now, while they don’t openly support gay marriage, they don’t openly go against it and as a result they are opening their party to new ideas.

Conservatives believe now what Classic liberals believe in.   They just don’t openly discuss their views on gay rights.

The one thing they are against is on demand abortion which I can support.     I don’t think killing babies on demand should be allowed.   I do think limits need to be placed.  Such as allowing rape victims or mothers whose life is threatened to be able to abort the child.   Not for a night out of partying and sleeping around and finding out your pregnant.      To many women abuse abortions.   Some use it as a primary birth control method and not as a last resort.     One woman I knew back in my 20s had never used birth control and used abortions as birth control.   She had a total of ten abortions over her short life.  Other women will abuse the privilege by finding out the gender of the child and if the child is not their preferred gender they want they abort and try again.

Conservatives in general tend to be on the right, but close to the middle, due to a few issues that they don’t agree on the left with.

FAR RIGHT.  Or ALT RIGHT

Is the same as progressives, only they are the opposite side.   So KKK, Nazi supporters People who are extremely homophobic, racist to anyone but white people.   Even the Ultra religious are included in this Far Right.    Like the Westboro Church.

The media confuses regular conservatives with the far right because they are all progressives pushing their agenda via the news.    So anyone they deem a threat to their narrative they will spout as Far Right.   And even go as far as try to pin Trump in that category.    Like Doug Ford.   He is a conservative, but is being labeled as the same as Trump.   In the media they treat Trump like he is Far Right.    He isn’t but that is how they see him and so any politician who remotely says the same things gets put in that category as a way to signal to the audience that they are racist on par with the KKK.

This is why people who watch the news get confused when they go watch speeches online by people labeled as Far Right and find their views pretty uncontroversial.

For example they stated that Milo Y.  is an Alt Right Figure head.    Milo is a gay white christian Jew, who is married to a black man,  who advocates for equal rights for all .     The media and the progressives will name him Alt Right because somehow they think he is racist, bigoted and even claim he is homophobic.


The progressive left and the media that is also progressive left will lead you to believe that anyone who isn’t on their side is evil.   They will attack all of these political parties by using SLURS.

Racism.   Misogyny.   Homophobic.   Trans phobic.  Islamophobic.

When you try to debate a progressive you will recognize them by their SLURS.    Most of their arguments are not based on facts but by feelings and when you challenge that with facts, they will resort to SLURS on your character every-time.

I personally blame feminism in it’s modern form because of inter-sectionalism.     I won’t define it here, but you can find it online.     Feminism is a form of Marxism, even with socialism mixed in.     It is why there is a hatred of men .    It is an ideology that generations have been indoctrinated into.     Which we are seeing the result in progressive ideology and their blind hatred of Donald Trump.

He is the epitimy of the patriarchy.   A Rich, Old, White Man, with a Beautiful supermodel wife.   Who is the leader of the free world.

This is why the progressives went into mass meltdown when Trump got elected.    He is the symbol of EVERYTHING they hate.    It’s why the progressive media won’t ever say anything good about Trump, even when it’s obvious Trump is doing a very good job.   They will deny it and make claims that it was Trump but someone else.    For example when Trump got people back to work by creating tax cuts and jobs came back.   Unemployment went to an all time low in over a decade.    Unemployment in black communities were at the lowest since the 60s.   Yet, they refused to admit that was Trump and tried to say that it was due to things Obama did that are now coming to fruition.

Even Canadian Progressives become unhinged at Trump.     I personally have lost friends over my support of Trump.   Those so called friends could not believe a gay man could support Trump.   Nor can they now believe I will support Sheer or Ford.

They hate the Carbon tax but don’t want to vote someone in who will get rid of it.    They hate high electricity bills but refuse to support the people who will reduce those bills.

All because of their ideology.

The upcoming elections in Canada and especially in Ontario will be interesting and will be one for the history books I think.      It will be a race in the provincial between NDP and Cons.     Federal,   I don’t think any party has a good chance except the Cons.  Progressives can’t win.   If they do we will see an increase in Ontario of 18 million immigrants as the progressive government currently plans to do by 2041.    That has to be stopped.    We don’t have the infrastructure to support that many people in Ontario.

So next election vote for the candidate, not the party.    If the candidate happens to be a conservative and has the same issues as you do with the current government then go for it.  If you area progressive, then go ahead and vote for your guy.

I’m going with my gut and voting Doug Ford and Andrew Sheer.

Advertisements

Canada’s Freedoms are Under Attack.

SilenceEqualsDeath

Many many people believe the charter is there to protect them.   It isn’t.     And this misconception has led to complacency.       Now we are in 2018 and things are not better, they are worse.

We have allowed the government to erode our charter and manipulate the law to circumvent the charter.

We do not have free speech in this country.    I keep saying this and will keep doing so.    We do not.  Those that think we do, guess again.

Here are some examples:
1.  Hate speech laws.    I was there when the federal government put these laws into place, and I didn’t like it back then.    They force people to be silence about their feelings on specific groups of people, well let’s just be honest, on everyone but White Males.    It made it legal to bash White Males and no one else.

Originally the Hate speech laws were very specific.   They use to state that it was illegal to incite violence to a specific group.  Like gay people.   Inciting violence to a group of people is called a call to action.    An example would be “Kill all the gays”  this would be a call to action.     Now fast forward to today, and the hate speech laws are changed to be really vague.

Here is an example:

Public incitement of hatred
  •  (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

If you believe this is straight forward it is not.    For example, there is no definition of Hate in the criminal code.   And how do you incite hatred for a group?    Due to this vagueness, it is easily abused into arresting people for citing facts about a group.    For example, how black people make up the smallest percentage of the population but according to government stats, they have the highest crime rate in any group.

By saying that, if you have a different type of world view, then it could be construed as inciting hatred toward a group.     Which is bad because it silences facts that someone may not like.   And is totally dependent, on the subject viewpoint of the reader.   Doesn’t matter if my intent is not hateful.

Then here is the other issue.   A summery conviction.      A summery conviction means a judge makes this ruling.   Not a jury.   So a summery conviction usually happens in court when you have two parties before the judge and the judge listens to both sides and then rules.    Does this sound fair?      I don’t find it fair or just.   There is no justice with this law.

Next in the law we have this:

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Now we have Wilful promotion of hatred.   This one is just as bad.  It prevents someone from handing out literature, writing a blog, etc from exercising their free speech.   It even states it is okay  do to so in private.   Meaning, you can’t publicly state your views on a topic about a group.   This is what this section says.   Scary huh?

So my writing this blog can be reported to the police and I could be charged with hate crimes.   Or anyone for that matter.   IF they mention any identifiable group.

Thankfully there is an out.   If the judge ruling accepts the out.   If the facts stated or communicated are true.    Here is the exact section:

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So you would have to prove the statements are true in court as the defense, usually it is the prosecution who has to prove their statements.   Guilty until proven innocent in court for the defendant in cases of hate speech.

There is an out for religious people.   Their holy writings.   So if their holy writings say gays are bad, then they can promote that.   Only if they can prove their religion says this.

If a public discussion is being had then you can talk about it, but again, privately.

So you get the idea of the laws.

So moving on, we have the trans-phobia law.   These laws state that you have to use the preferred pronouns of the trans person, otherwise you are committing a hate crime by not doing so.  This is called Compelled speech.  And no common law government has ever done this.    Communist governments, yes.  Socialist governments, yes.     Democratic ones, no.    Never.     Canada has broken away from democracy and is heading down the highway of Marxism.

Due to the universities and their Marxist ideologies coming from the gender studies courses we have seen a massive influx of kids over the past ten years coming out and entering the work force influencing society with this disastrous ideology and mentality.

They treat white males with contempt and vileness, and elevate and give special treatment to minority groups based on some invisible oppression scale.    It’s a disgusting world when you can openly be racist to white people and when the racism is pointed out, groups of black clad people come out and violently attack people under the guise of being against fascism when they themselves operate under a communist ideology which is a symbol of fascism at it’s finest.     And it is worse when many of the general public support it.

Meanwhile people from really oppressive cultures that are truly hateful, that follow a religion that wants us subjugated under their religion are protected and given succor.   Like the Islamic terrorists who are allowed to come back to Canada.  Meanwhile White Farmers from south Africa who apply for refugee status because they are being killed, raped, and beaten because of their skin color is denied entry, for simply being white.   It is disgusting that our government allows this.

Now we have bill C-71 which has passed it’s first reading.     It will effectively make it illegal to own a long gun.  (Rifle).   Which would essentially disarm the people.

When are we the people going to draw the line?   When are we the people going to protect our freedoms from the government ?

As the saying goes…   Silence = Death.    If we don’t stand up now, our freedoms will die.

Abortion – “My body My Right!” Why this argument fails to logic and reason.

o-ABORTION-facebook.jpg

Abortion.  Such a touchy subject and one that many women will scream about.   In fact with the current american election looming, the subject has come up due to Hilary’s opinion that the unborn have no rights in law until they are born.   Which means, in her eyes, that a child can be ripped apart via abortion right up until the time labor starts.

This has caused a debate on abortion to renew again.  I’ve seen this debate happen numerous times over  the past forty years.   However, now with age comes wisdom and understanding.

The understanding that “my body my right” is false.     I will list my reasons why.

Let’s begin with conception.    Life starts there.   The mother’s egg is dormant until the father’s sperm penetrates the egg and gives it the spark of life and energy it needs to start cell reproduction.

One of the arguments from women is that they give life or create life.   Technically this is incorrect.   At best you can call a woman an incubator.   They carry and gestate that child in their body but the “spark” that created that life, came from the father.

The cells reproduce and form a child.   During that process there are many stages.    Many argue that there is no “life” until there is a heartbeat or a brain etc.    This really is a strawman argument.  Since as I stated the spark started at inception.

Now, with that being said many argue that the fetus can be aborted right until week 31-35.  In Canada, this is 24 weeks.  This is what a fetus looks like at that time.

fetus24weeks

Now I don’t know about you, but this does not look like a bunch of cells that get scraped off the uterus wall.     Yet, the abortions can and do happen this late.

So the argument of “My Body, My Right” is false.  It disregards the life of the child as nothing.   So I can understand how some could see it as murder.

If anyone has watched the Videos from the investigation into Planned Parenthood, you would have seen the horrors that they present.   Selling the aborted baby parts for profit.   The staff separating brain, legs, arms as if they were never human life.

Then we have father’s rights.   Or rather, the lack of reproductive rights.    Many of the people who argue for abortion always mention that “If the father didn’t want a child, they shouldn’t have had sex”.     This argument is without any kind of reason, coherent thought or logic.    The reason being is, the same logic can be applied to the women.   “If she didn’t want a child she shouldn’t have had sex”.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against abortion completely.   I firmly believe there should be allowances in law for it.  Such as cases of women or girls getting pregnant from rape, or incest.   Or in medical needs, such as her life is in danger from the pregnancy.   Those to me seem to be reasonable.

We have had over 50 years in Canada of proper sex education, women have access to more than twenty kind of contraceptive options.   Everyone, and I mean everyone knows the pill is not 100 percent and yet we still have unwanted pregnancies.

So maybe it’s time ladies to stop blaming men for your pregnancy?   Men have 3 options to them.  A condom, Abstinence or a vasectomy.    The power, the choices and the rights are all yours.   So if you get pregnant and it is unwanted, then to me, it is your fault. At least, ninety percent on you.

As, I have written, men do not have rights when it comes to being a father or not.   You scoff and will rant, but it is true.

Men have zero choice in becoming a father.   Once the sperm, penetrates the egg and cell division starts then women have all the power and the choice in society.    If a woman gets pregnant here are her choices.

1.  She can choose to abort.  2.  She can choose to keep the child.  3. She can choose to give the child up for adoption.  4. She can choose to not name the child’s father on the birth certificate.   5. She can choose to force the father to pay child support.  6.  She can choose to let the father give up his so called “parental rights as father”.   7.  She can choose to deny the father any visits to the child.

All the choices are hers.     This is why,  I think the laws  in this country concerning abortion need to take a more balanced approach to, well, every aspect.

We need to have this discussion as a nation.   People need to be honest and less selfish about it and that will start with you ladies, cause we men, don’t have the rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free Speech under attack in Canada

SilenceEqualsDeath

Today a news report came across my feed about a former MP who launched a class action lawsuit against a religious man who passed out pamphlets at the gay pride parade in Toronto.

The pamphlets being ultra religious, stated inflammatory information, like all gay people are aids carriers etc.    Much of it was disgusting, according to those who attended the parade.

However, when I asked the person who launched the Lawsuit, if the pamphlets contained calls for people to beat up gay people or to kill gay people?   He avoided answering.    Trying to deflect the question by stating that he wasn’t about to post anything what was in the pamphlets because he found it distasteful and disgusting.

I took that evasion to mean, that no, the preacher man didn’t have anything that called for the extermination of gay people or the harming of gay people.

Freedom of speech does not mean you only get to hear or read things that you like.  If that was the case, I would not be able to write my articles.  No news reporters would be able to actively report the truth.   People could be arrested for having the wrong views or opinions.  Books would be banned.  Movies, Television would be heavily censored.

Now while in Canada, we tend to be a more socialist nation than one of democracy.  In fact I have written on this numerous times.  I have also written how we don’t have free speech  in this country.  And we really don’t.  We have limits here on what we can say.

Only now I believe it’s time for everyone, in Canada , to wake up and put a stop to people trying to silence you because you might hurt their feelings, or because they are offended, or find whatever you saying distasteful.   You have every single right to voice your opinion, to speak your mind and to say what you want. As  long as you don’t call for violence against anyone.

We need to fight people who try to attack free speech.  We do this by using logic, reasoning and not be shamed or silenced by those who would silence our speech.

I sincerely hope the court system does the right thing and throws this case out with the trash, otherwise there could be serious repercussions for everyone, including those who would silence us.

Lawsuit story here:
http://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-distribution-of-anti-gay-literature-at-pride-parade-1.3026515

New Mental Disorder Discovered- IVD

Bipolar Disorder1

 

I have discussions with people both online and in real life about current affairs, politics, activism, and more.     Many people are passionate about what they are discussing and as such, I really don’t mind when the discussion or debate gets heated.    If both people understand that the discussion or debate is just that, then you can have a heated debate without taking it personally.

However, many people out there are unable to cope with this idea and do take things personally.   And those people tend to be the worst.   Especially some of the commentators on social media sites.   Instead of saying something constructive or conducive to the debate or discussion at hand, they of course, resort to name calling or attacking someone for stating something they have every right to state.     And instead of being civilized they become these lunatics with an axe to grind.

After decades of being active online,  I can spot these people very easily.   They try to come off as some sort of moral authority on their opinion and attack someone by using slurs that sound racist and bigoted.   Then when you confront them they invariably turn their ire on you when you defend yourself or a friend  from them.   When that doesn’t work and their argument falls apart they then try to slander you to try to get you to move away from the topic at hand in hopes that you will defend yourself from their offensive and then finally claim victim status saying you are the aggressor while they are the poor victim.

This happens almost daily online with people.   They think that being offended by something they see online gives them the automatic moral right to attack people, and when they are defended against, they pretend to be victims of abuse online.    There are many people out there who do this.   I see many feminists, SJWs and liberals who do this.

New Disorder….??

This is what I call the Infantile Victim Disorder or IVD.   You get an IVD when you have a warped set of beliefs that cause you to believe there is a mysterious patriarchy made up of old white men out to get you.    Or that you think you are superior to the other person due to their body parts.  And even due to a skin tone that is not considered Caucasian.

Symptoms include,  being “triggered“.  Using the word Problematic,  and telling men they have male privilege or the other variant if you are a person of another color,  having white male privilege.

Other symptoms may include:   Obesity, Poverty, Neon color in hair, getting undressed in public to march against rape, yelling and spitting on men at university, submitting false rape claims, false reports of sexual assault.  Raping men.  Being the aggressor in domestic violence.  Lesbianism.

If you suspect you have IVD, please go see a psychiatrist immediately.     Usually sufferers of IVD also have Bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and project their issues and blame others for problems that don’t exist or are the cause of the sufferer’s own actions.

Gender Fluid theory is Garbage.

GF

To many people, they believe that gender fluid means that you can change your gender, like you can change your underwear.  The reality (truth) is that you can’t.    Gender is the description word we use to describe the sex of a person via pronouns.   “He” is the gender pronoun for a male.  “She” is the gender pronoun for a female.

The gender fluid idea not only dictates that you change your gender like you change your underwear, but that there must be a new gender pronouns created to describe these people.

Gender neutral pronouns have been created so people won’t offend their special snowflake friends.

Here is an example of made up, and in some cases unpronounceable pronouns:

Gender Pronouns.png

More of the garbage can be found here: http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

The problem with all this is simply the fact that people actually think, that changing your gender is the simply act of a way of thought or clothing.     The act of putting on a dress for a guy or bandaging up the breasts for a woman and putting on the opposite gender’s clothing means that they are the opposite sex.    It is not.   This is typically known as cross-dressing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross%E2%80%93dressing

I’ve heard the idea from the idiots who believe this nonsense that gender is based on your personality, and not your anatomy.    This is also untrue, since your anatomy dictates if your male or female.  Hence, why people say “Penis = Male” and “Vagina = Female”.

There are mentally ill people who think they are puppy dogs to and want to live out their lives as dogs or even other animals or even mythical creatures.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/25/secret-life-of-the-human-pups-the-men-who-live-as-dogs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3524063/Transgender-woman-Eva-Tiamat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html

That brings me to trans-gendered people.   These people fall into the same category as the above.

These people suffer from a mental illness called “Gender Dysphoria”

These are people who are unhappy with their biological sex and believe they are the opposite sex.   That somehow, the doctor when they were born, didn’t recognize the proper gender and “assigned” them the wrong one.

Decades ago this was treated, successfully I might add, as a mental illness.  The treatment used to entail regular visits to a psychiatrist and medication.   It was believed that people who suffered from this illness had a chemical imbalance.    Then came the gay rights movement and feminism.      They cited that it was NOT a mental illness that gender is a social construct.    They convinced enough people, to re-examine the idea of the treatments, saying they are more harmful than helpful because it ignores the person’s feelings.     Remember folks, feeling over fact and science is precedence with these people.

Then doctors created the mutilation surgeries that are still to this day, really bad.  They allow people to voluntarily mutilate their bodies via cosmetic surgery in an effort to look like the opposite sex, while not being able to be biologically the opposite sex.

Let me explain.

You cannot change your DNA.   You cannot change your muscle structure.  You cannot change your skeletal structure.      So your body regardless of the surgery will still show up as your sex that you were born as.       This makes all those transgender surgeries under the category of cosmetic.

The worse part of it is that they are chopping off working body parts, and sewing on body parts that do not work as intended.   For example, a male undergoing a male to female surgery, will not have a working uterus, and no eggs.    So after the surgery she cannot bear children.    A female to male is worse.   In many cases the female decides to KEEP her uterus and have a penis sewn on.  Only the penis cannot produce sperm and needs a rod or a pump installed to inflate it to be able to have sex.   So technically it doesn’t work as functioning male either.   In many of the cases of the women who go through those surgeries and keep their uterus, they decide at some point to have a baby.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416088/Transgender-German-man-Europe-baby-boy-following-home-birth.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1

Transgender means that you are transitioning from one gender to another.  It doesn’t mean you can stay in that middle state and call yourself a man if you have a uterus.
Then the argument comes in that “Oh but the surgeries are expensive”.    Yes, well cosmetic surgeries usually are, because they do not add any value to health.  And are why they call them cosmetic.

And these people still are not happy after they go through with the surgeries.   In fact many regret doing it.  So much that they commit suicide in the same high numbers as they do before the surgeries.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

When you fight your own biology, you will lose.  You can’t change your gender.  It is scientifically an impossibility.    Feminist theory professors have an agenda.  Indoctrination into the cult of feminism.  They need to convince young minds that their theories are facts and due to the borg collective mentally of feminism,  many just believe this without question.

Don’t fall for the idea that Gender is fluid on anyone’s say so.  Challenge it.  Question it.   Dissect it.

Toronto plans on Giving out Award for Racism

BLMTO
(Racist Black Lives Matter Group, stops Toronto Gay Pride Parade for 30 minutes in 2016)

The Black Lives Matter movement is a racist hate group and they are getting an award for it.    Yes you read that correctly.   The city of Toronto is planning on giving Black Lives Matter Toronto branch an award for “improving” race relations.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94296.pdf

This is what Liberal Progressives think is progressive.   By rewarding special interest groups if they scream and cry loud enough.   Much like a child throwing a tantrum and a parent gives in to keep them quiet.     So far, Toronto has been quiet, and has given in to their demands, much like anyone that the BLM group has gone to.   Including the most recent Pride Toronto.

The Pride Toronto disruption to the parade was an insult to all gay people.    The leaders in this branch were given the honor of leading the gay pride parade.   What did they do with that honor?   They spit in the face of gay people by disrupting the parade for 30 minutes and making idiotic demands which in this day an age sound like things they would have demanded in the era of the civil rights movement in the United States.     However, what these people fail to recognize is that, as the liberals and progressives like to say, “It’s 2016”.     Canada has never treated black people the way they got treated by our neighbors down south.     Canada has always been against slavery for example.  We helped free slaves by helping with the underground railroad and brought many of the former slaves here to live free.   We have had equal rights for decades, yet this group seems to think it’s the 40s USA where police beat down the black man and it’s all the white man’s fault.

What makes me angry about this whole thing is the way the city of Toronto city hall and other groups like the Pride Committee just give in to this group.  Why do they do this?  For fear of being called racist and non-inclusive themselves.    Their liberal white guilt and feminist ideology is to blame here.     It’s become so bad to speak out against real injustice and more ideal to gain the approval of their peers that they perform virtue signaling to the other liberals to show them how progressive and inclusive they are by going out of their way to make groups like the BLM happy, without truly thinking about the repercussions and examining what the BLM says.   One look at their facebook group page shows exactly their racist thinking and the divisiveness they promote among the races.

Remember BLM leader and her famous tweets about killing white people and men?    This is their leader and she promotes racism and sexism, and barely anyone called her out.   These people need to be shunned when they appear.   Treat them with the same respect you would to a neo nazi or white supremacist and then we can work on equality.

So Toronto, will you continue to pander to these children who have never faced real adversity in their lives or will you learn from your mistakes and face reality and stop awarding racist bigots for their work on dividing people instead of uniting people?

I’m gay and here is why I want gay people to be armed.

Guns

I wasn’t going to write about Gun Control because that debate has been and still is being beaten to death with lies and half truths being flung around.   Also with blame on the Orlando shooting being flung in many directions.

My perspective comes a as gay man who grew up in an era of hate against gays.   I was there in the 80s and 90s fighting for our rights while gay men were thrown off bridges, killed, beaten and raped while the police did nothing and turned a blind eye.    So with this perspective I can see all the views and how all of them are wrong and right.

The answer in all this is you cannot point to any one problem that caused this, but a bunch of problems that culminated into a massacre.

Let us look at the shooter himself.    This is the big factor here.   He was raised in a highly religious house with an overbearing and strict father who publicly has stated gays should be killed.  They should die etc.     Hard enough to live and grow up in a home with that being straight, but now throw in a guy who, turns out to be gay himself.   He tried pretending and it didn’t work.   He was unhappy and that unhappiness and upbringing told him he could be violent to women.    So he turned to the people that he felt he had something in common with.  Gay people.   He dated them, slept with them, hung out at gay bars with them for years.   That was his sanctuary, as it is for other gay men and lesbian women.

Then we look at the ideology of Islam.   Here is a quote from their Quran.

“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.” (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse).

Or
“We also sent Lut : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81

There are many more example and interpretations of this religion that I could cite page after page of quotes against us, but I won’t.   Here is a link though to one site that specifically talks about Islam and homosexuality…

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/homosexuality.htm

So now, if you put yourself in the shooters shoes you get an idea of the self hatred and guilt he was feeling.    Then you take in the fact they openly preach we should die in their mosques right here in North America and you get a problem.

Add in the background checks performed by the FBI and they purposely chose to allow this mentally disturbed individual to own a gun and you get what happened in Orlando.

Now here is the argument that many liberals in the United States and Canada are using.

 Ban Guns.  Guns kill people.    We will be safer.

I have a huge issue with this.  The issue is this assumes we will be safer without proof.   They will cite that there is less gun violence in Canada.  Oh wait… percentage wise no there isn’t.      They can’t do math.   You see Canada is  smaller population wise.   We have 10% of the population the USA has.   That means we have a 10th of the number of the crimes that the USA has.   And the stats actually back this up.    We have had our share of mass shootings and killings.

Then we hear the arguments that we shouldn’t blame all Muslims.    And I agree with this. However, what they fail to understand is that just because you don’t want radical Muslims to own guns or be allowed into the country, that you are somehow Islamophobic for wanting to stop these radicals from owning weapons or being allowed into a country.

They also like to ignore what is happening in other places in the world with the “It hasn’t happened, or can’t happen” here mentality.    Germany, Sweden, Australia and other westernized countries have a serious problem of Muslim rape gangs.   According to their religion it is okay to rape non Muslim women or women who are not married and protected by men.  In fact many Muslim men who have been questioned on this respond that they had no idea that what they did was against the law or bad.  In their faith, it is perfectly acceptable.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/02/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female.html

So the religion itself is pretty bad against gays and women and the liberals want to embrace this religion because “not all muslims”.    I really don’t care about the peaceful Muslim people.   The ones who live their lives beside me in peace.   My doctor is a Muslim woman and I’m a gay white man.    The problem I have is with the ones who follow that faith to the letter and want to kill me.

This comes to my other point.    We have a right to protect ourselves from anyone attacking us.     Liberals don’t think so.   They think that the only people that should be allowed to protect us is the government.     However, intelligent people understand that police don’t always show up on time, if they are even called.      Was the police called in the Orlando Shooting?   Yes.  Did they show up in time to stop the guy from killing 50 people and injuring another 50?   The answer is no.   It takes seconds to  stop a mass shooting as this video shows:

There are many other cases of this on YouTube.   You never hear about this because the Liberals would rather you not hear both sides of the argument.   They just want you helpless and dependent on others for your safety.

If one or two people at that Nightclub had been armed, the death toll would have been much smaller.

No population has ever been safe from being disarmed.    In those countries that have been, the rates of violent crimes have risen dramatically.   Including murder and rape.    If you know for a fact you won’t be shot by someone then your chance of survival from committing a horrible act goes up and therefor they have no fear in doing those crimes.   This brings me to…

Gun Free Zones argument…

They don’t work.   They just don’t.  In many of the mass shootings they were in Gun Free Zones like Sandy Hook etc.   If a person doesn’t care about killing you, then why would you honestly think a sign that says “gun free zone” would stop them?    It is an invitation to them.  They know that they have less if not no chance of someone shooting them back.   Yet the argument these work is patently idiotic.

Love beats Hate argument….

This one doesn’t work either.   We have tried that for all my life in Canada and there are still terrorists trying to kill us, people shooting people, and killing people.    What does work is defending oneself from an attacker.

Love doesn’t stop a bullet.  

With so many people out  there that want to kill me because of who I love in my life that honestly does cause fear for my safety and those around me.  My husband and I grew up in the era of constant threat of violence and while that threat went down dramatically over the decades I admit, I am still hated by many and as the Orlando shooting and Islam teaches Muslims, that we must be killed.    I and any other sane gay person or even women shouldn’t feel safe with that kind of threat hanging over our heads.

“Only a small number of Muslims” argument….

Do the math.   There is 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet all over the world.  That is a huge portion of the planets population.      In Canada it 35% of the Muslim population agrees with the terrorists.      With  1,053,945 Muslims in Canada, and if 35% agree with the terrorists .. that means over 300, 112 Muslims want me dead.  And that is in my own country.

Canada[edit]

A newly released survey suggests a large number of Muslims living in Canada will not disown Al-Qaida.The study,[34] conducted by the MacDonald Laurier Institute, found 65% of Muslims questioned said they would “repudiate absolutely” the terrorist organization, while 35% would not do so.

“From a security perspective, it is difficult to know if a 65% rate of repudiation (of Al-Qaida) is re-assuring or a 35% failure to repudiate troubling,” wrote study authors Christian Leuprecht, associate professor of the Royal Military College of Canada and Conrad Winn, Carleton University professor and president of COMPAS, a public opinion research firm.
. . .

The report also states support for extremism is just as high among Muslims born in Canada, or other Western countries, as it is among those hailing from oppressive dictatorships.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism

So in closing, you have to decide for yourself if you need to arm yourself and protect yourself.  If you prefer to live in a world where you expect everyone else to protect you then that is your choice.   I know from experience and from reading history and seeing the bodies pile up on the news that this is not the case and we as gay people are  targets.  We need to protect ourselves.    You can’t hug away terrorism or terrorist acts.


Open Letter to the Leaders of Canada

To Justin Trudeau, his Cabinet, and the current sitting members of Parliament,

I am going to step away from the main virtue that Canadian people are known for, and that is being nice.    I’m angry.   I am angry at you.  All of you.  You failed.   You failed in your duty.    The main one to which all people believe in, when it comes to a democratic nation.

The duty of protecting it’s people.     You failed.    You failed in helping our Canadian citizens John Ridsdel and Robert Hall.

Abu Sayyaf demand Canadian government pay ransom for hostage Robert Hall in new video

While our Prime Minister was busy with PR stunts and photo opportunities, these men, our own citizens had their lives cut short by people who have no respect for freedom, democracies, religions or life.   They pleaded from their government to intervene in some way.   You stood by and did nothing.   They asked you in the very real terror to do your duty to protect them, and you were silent.

“To the Canadian government, I’m told to tell you to meet the demand,” Hall said in the video. “I don’t know what you’re doing but, you’re not doing anything for us. John is being sacrificed, his family has been decimated, and I’m not sure why or what you’re waiting for.”

Then afterwards,  Justin you went on camera and gave a speech, which amounted to nothing.   It meant nothing.   You did nothing to prevent this tragedy, nothing to protect our citizens, our brothers.    You had the power, the authority but you stood by and did nothing.

You took a policy of standing by and doing nothing after decades of terrorism and threats to free people of the world.   Instead you sit back and kill the people you have  a duty to protect and wring your hands and give your condolences to the families of the dead who have to live with the loss and the knowledge of the horrible ways these victims died.

It’s time you, and I mean a all of you stand up and do your duty to the people of canada and do something to stop these terrorists from doing this again to any Canadian.   It’s time you did your duty.    If you cannot, or will not, protect our people when these types of things happen then all of you need to step down from your positions and let real men and women, who have the courage to stand up against terrorists who kidnap and kill our people.

Instead of spending your time in front of the press, flashing love signs and promoting feminism and spending billions each month, do your job.

The policy of not paying ransoms has failed.   It can be proven with the evidence of the bodies of these men, and every single man, woman and child this has happened to over the past 20 years.

If a police officer stands by, and does nothing and remains silent, while he watches a citizen be killed by another he can be considered an accessory to the crime of murder.    You, the cabinet and the members of parliament are guilty of being accessories to acts terrorism.

Do something or step down from your positions you cowards.

Violating Rights in the Name of Safety?

Human-rights-violations

We all have rights.   Many of those rights are violated today under the guise of “for your safety” or for “public safety”.      Like the era of Hitler when he came into power, pro police and pro authority supporters encourage this.    They praise police when they very obviously have broken the law or violated someone’s individual human rights.
Today I read a very vague article in my local newspaper, that lead me to believe the person mentioned in it had her rights violated.   Which of course prompted a heated debate as I seemed to be the only one who recognized this.

Here is the article:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6470583-drunk-woman-spits-in-police-officer-s-face-at-hamilton-hospital/

Now, after reading the article it does not say why she was in the hospital or why she was angry.     So we can only speculate.    I am someone who presumes innocence until proven guilty, so I will presume she is innocent of any crime.

Which leaves only a few reasons for her to act this way.  The most logical and basic is that she was forced there against her will, got angry and spit on the cop.   Who then proceeded to charge her for getting a little wet.

The comment section heated on social media when I mentioned that her rights had most likely been violated by the cops, the medical professions and possibly the paramedics if they used them.

This caused a stir.   People stood up and commented that the cops was assaulted, but really were they?

If you are taken against your will to someplace you didn’t want to go, just because you were drunk, isn’t that kidnapping?   I would think so.  In fact the Legal definition of kidnapping is:

Kidnapping

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

This is what they did. That is again assuming that she didn’t want to go and didn’t commit any crimes while drunk.

Many would say that it was for her safety and that makes it right.     Actually no it doesn’t.  The only person who can make that decision is the person in question.    The only time that doesn’t apply is when they are unable to due to mental illness or they are unconscious.

In the 90s, I lived in BC and at that time there was a serious heroin problem.  100% pure heroin was being sold on the streets and anyone who would inject themselves with it would overdose and die within 3o minutes.   This was such a major problem that they had paramedics driving ambulances in the alleys and looking for unconscious drug addicts.

When they found a conscious drug user, they would offer help, and if they person said no they legally could not do anything.    If that happened they would wait until that person lost consciousness and then act.

When I asked the  authorities about that, they said that by law they cannot force a medical treatment against someone’s will unless they were unable to make that decision themselves.   That is to me the right thing to do.

Now back to the woman in the article, if she was drunk and they transported her to the hospital and she refused medical treatment, then forcing her to have it would have made the medical staff at fault.  And the police trying to “deescalate” the situation would not have made it any better.     No means no.     And since the police in this age are not known to be gentle or nice , we can only assume their idea of deescalate was to use force on her to hold her down.   To which the only thing the woman could do to defend herself would be to spit on the cop.

Some paramedics piped up and stated they deal with drunk people all the time who don’t want help and have to “deal” with the violence all the time.  Same with some nurses at the hospitals.     Here is my message you to and to any of these people who think they are helping someone.   “NO MEANS NO.”  Drunk or sober, you do not have the right to force a medical treatment, force someone to go somewhere, without their consent or against their will.   NEVER!   If they attack you in anyway it is within their right to defend themselves because regardless of your intent, you are violating their rights and attacking them”.

Can people understand this?    If a drunk driver is held accountable for their actions of getting in the vehicle and driving while drunk then they have the ability to say no to unwanted help.    If you violate this and take them to a hospital and try to perform a medical procedure, any medical procedure then you are at fault and not the drunk person.

Pass this on and share this.   The more people that get educated on rights, then maybe we can fix this from happening to others.