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.

Advertisements

Free Speech vs Hate Speech

I recently got into a debate on this (again), and for some reason people cannot fathom that hate speech laws are a form of censorship.     Worse yet.   We have the mayor of Ottawa Jim Watson, who has been in his office since the beginning of time, who openly now tweets and states that he is for the stiffing of speech because he finds it “vile”.

Mayors blast ‘pro-rape’ men’s meetings planned for Canadian cities

I tweeted him and stated that wanting to censor free speech is wrong, and he responded by calling me vile for supporting the guy  who wants to open a dialog about the rape laws.

Reasonable people understand that rape is bad.  We all know this.  No one condones rape.   The problem lies with the idea and definitions of rape.

Feminist supporters think rape can be this magical thing that can happen at any point.     Let me explain.

They (Liberals and Feminists) believe that (I’ve written about this before),

  1.  A man and a woman who BOTH get drunk, BOTH consent to sex and have sexual intercourse is rape.    Why?  A woman is apparently unable to consent while drunk.
  2. A woman who goes home with a strange man, gets drunk, takes drugs and gets naked, has sex with the strange man but doesn’t remember having sex has been raped.
  3. A woman who consents to having sex even when sober and then regrets the experience a week later, has been apparently been raped.

Do you notice the trend here?     Women are not responsible for their actions but men are despite being equal in things.

So this Return of Kings guy is calling for a debate and discussion about the rape laws if it occurs in your own home.

I get what he is saying and while I don’t agree entirely, with much of what he says, I understand that freedom of speech means being able to talk about things that people may find vile or abhorrent without repercussions from government.

As far as Mayor Jim Watson is concerned the idea of questioning the idea of rape laws is abhorrent.    This is the type of people in power and have been in power for a very long time.

I tweeted back the mayor stating the differences, that hate is the calling for 90% of men to be castrated or killed via the #killallmen hashtag.   Or the Drinking Male Tears meme which is common among rich white sorority girl feminists who do not understand basic concepts of freedom of speech.

Using these laws to shut down talk and discussion that you “FEEL” is wrong is not a valid reason.   Free Speech is a double edged sword.    I’m gay and I’ve heard the debate and discussion when gay marriage and even back when gays were not accepted as they are now.    I may not have liked what was being said but I never wanted to stop people from speaking their minds on subjects and having rational discussions.

Jim Watson, Justin Trudeau, if a woman or a man goes home with a stranger, and has spent a night flirting and implying they are interested in having sexual intercourse, and they go to either one’s home, get drunk or even not.    Get naked and have sex, and one party regrets it the next day, that is not rape.     Neither is it when you get drunk, and get naked in someone else’s bed.   That is called implied consent.   I know this concept is foreign to you but it is a real thing.    Penalizing someone for wanting to speak their mind on the subject or banning someone from speaking is called censorship.

And censorship is a form of oppression and hate.    Hate of true freedom.