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

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.