Posts
“One gives the name of tyrant to the sovereign who knows no laws but those of
his caprice.” - Voltaire
No one contests the power and practice of government to disperse public protests when these become too inconvenient to public peace and order. Governments often do so with lesser forms of violence, such as the use of truncheons, tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets. But in liberal democracies founded on the rights of free speech and assembly, government responses must always be measured and proportional. To meet civil protests with martial law or a general suspension of rights is the hallmark of tyrannies.
Canada's Emergencies Act allows grants extraordinary powers to government in four types of cases: public welfare emergency (e.g. natural disasters), a public order emergency (e.g. a trucker protest), an international emergency, or a war emergency. Trudeau has invoked the second type of emergency.
Under the Act a public order emergency must be “so serious as to be a national emergency.” ( Government Statement It can only be invoked in the event of “ an urgent and critical” national emergency that ...”seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.” (Emergency Act.) Only by a resort to sophistical semantics can the trucker protest be classified as a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada.
Nor have the protests “seriously endanger[ed] the lives, health or safety of Canadians.” It has, as protests inevitably do, inconvenienced the tranquility, routines and employment of some Canadians but that is not the “proportion” envisioned by the Act. The preposition of “expresses the relationship between a part [the fringe minority of truckers] and a whole [all Canadians].” It does not express the relationship of part to part or of some to some. While natural emergencies invariably affect only some part of the country, a national emergency must by definition, affect the whole.
Trudeau's sophistical and subversive answer to this requirement is tantamount to arguing that the stub of one's toe “affects” the whole body! Why indeed, the pain gets immediately relayed to the brain and hurts like hell. But it is not the same as a body impact or a disease of systemic proportions.
Trudeau has been criticised by the Conservatives and even by his own coalition NDP for not making any attempt to diffuse the situation. But more fundamentally, Trudeau ought to be accused of abuse of language and in this article I will examine that issue. Articulate speech, says Aristotle, is that which enables Man to “decide between the expedient and the inexpedient, the just and the unjust.” (Politics, Bk. I, Ch.1.) In other words, what we call “law” is simply “language” (is it anything else?) and the corruption of language necessarily entails the corruption of law. From the outset of this protest, Trudeau and his minions in the press, have resorted to a grab bag of sophistries, fallacies and insinuations in order to demonize the protestors and spook the general population. It is the time-honoured technique of all despots.
Trudeau's eristic is not self-originating. It has arisen from a long standing culture of political correctness used to achieve social and political ends. Trudeau would have gotten nowhere in a society accustomed to calling a spade and spade. He has gotten to where he is precisely because culture in the West has become an exercise in dogma, resentment, shibboleths, and puritanical hysteria. All this is fertile soil for tyrants and, as I shall discuss at the end, Canada's response to the Trucker Protest has been exploited by the United States as a trial balloon or stalking horse for extending the security state by enabling financial depersonalization of “perceived” and “potential” opponents.
Trudeau's initial response to the truckers' protest was to smear; and, in order to smear, he resorted to the fallacy of faulty generalizations -- converting an exception into the rule. Grammatically, this is done by referring to a singular event in the plural. Thus when a flag with a swastika on it appeared at the rally outside Parliament, Trudeau and his drones in the press, began to vent outrage over protests that included “symbols of hate”. The studied attempt was to give the impression that a sea of swastikas were being waved outside Parliament when, in fact, the only thing that could be seen was a sea of red maple leafs.
The misuse of language and the abuse of fact was actually worse. Later footage showed that the swastika had been painted onto a Canadian flag in what was patently a graphic statement that the country's Covid policies were “fascist”. Whether they were or not is immaterial. The point is that no one was flying the Nazi flag in affirmation of National Socialism. Aside from the one image that appeared on a trucker video, never once has the MSM or even the progressive press put up a picture showing swastikas or confederate flags being waved at the protest to back up their broad-brush defamations. Faulty Generalizations typically dovetail into vague and overbroad assertions, such as when the protestors were accused of “breaking the law” and “criminal” conduct, without specifying what law, exactly, was violated. In this instance a general category (“criminal conduct”) was used to refer to a minor discrepancy. While technically correct -- overtime parking is a criminal offence -- the use of a broad all inclusive categorization is misleading and invites the listener to infer the worse.
A similarly included fallacy is stretched causality and magnification of effect, as when Trudeau asserted that “critical supply chains have been disrupted.... hurting jobs and livelihoods.” It is true that the blockade at Windsor disrupted a supply chain. But that the disruption might have been “critical” to that factory does not mean that it was critical to the national economy of Canada. This sort of argumentation is simply a resort to spooking the listener.
Almost by definition, any exercise of the right of public assembly, will inevitably entail some inconvenient effect or “violate the law.” That is why, typically, a permit is required for a public gathering. But, where the gathering involves the exercise of free speech, the issuance of a permit is all but mandatory. Where a permit has not been given or obtained, the overarching right to assemble, block and annoy remains. People who are committed to the fundamental values of liberal democracies understand that one group's exercise of free speech and assembly inevitably entails annoyance and inconvenience which must be put up with by the rest of us in order to maintain the essential character of a free nation. This -- and not the politically correct version -- is the true meaning of tolerance; from toleratio, to bear, endure.
But that kind of tolerance and inclusivity is nothing to Trudeau and his
minions. For them, objective good is simply the projection of their subjective
desires. Whatever it is they want becomes a “fundamental value” simply because
they want it; and any opposition to what they want can only be met without
outrage, intolerance and exclusion. This used to be the favourite stomping
ground of religious fanatics. Today it is the battle field of woke lunatics.
The battle began in 1991 at Bette's Oceanside Diner in Berkeley when a customer at the popular breakfast and lunch eatery sat in his booth reading an article in Plaboy magazine. His waitress (sexist word!), refused to serve him and demanded that he put the “offensive” material away or leave. Although the manager smoothed over the situation, the following day, the diner became the scene of confrontation between First Amendment champions and Third Wave Feminists who, while pelting people with hot-dogs, shouted that “pornography is a sexual assault.”
The battle began in 1991 at Bette's Oceanside Diner in Berkeley when a customer at the popular breakfast and lunch eatery sat in his booth reading an article in Plaboy magazine. His waitress (sexist word!), refused to serve him and demanded that he put the “offensive” material away or leave. Although the manager smoothed over the situation, the following day, the diner became the scene of confrontation between First Amendment champions and Third Wave Feminists who, while pelting people with hot-dogs, shouted that “pornography is a sexual assault.”
As the incident at Bette's Diner illustrates, at the heart of the woke mentality is the subjectification of reality. Not only are subjective desires posited as objective goods, subjective fears and sensibilities are mistaken for objective facts.
How is looking at pornography an assault? It isn't. The word assault, from the Latin ad-saltus or to jump at, describes physical conduct directed at person. Reading or oogling porn is not an assault. Period. Nor is it possible to “verbally assault” another. While that phrase may be assumed to be a metaphor it is a very bad metaphor because it suggests objective criminal conduct for what is only subjective annoyance. One can be insulted, annoyed, offended, outraged or intimidated by a statement, but these words describe a psychological reaction not a physical act.
The argument made by feminists and other victimologists is that the offending statement is the “trigger” (another metaphor) for the reaction and is therefore as harmful as a physical assault. That actually may be true. It is certainly true when, for example, parents repeatedly denigrate and disparage their child. But, just as there is a distinction between the general and the specific, there is a distinction between something habitual and an occasional incident - between repeated verbal abuse and a singular insult.
Failing to make the distinction means that nothing ever at all could be said if it upset a single person. One might think that the denizens of academe might grasp the distinction but, evidently, they don't. In any case, just as the right of free assembly requires a certain tolerance for inconvenience, so too, the right of free speech presupposes that fellow citizens will have a certain thickness of skin. Far more paralyzing than a bunch of truckers blocking roads, is locking down free speech on the grounds that it gives rise to a purely subjective harm to someone else.
But that lockdown was precisely what Trudeau called for when he accused the truckers of “intimidating” people. Who was intimidated, one might ask. What were the circumstances? I will quote the two instances cited by none other than the BBC.
"Monica Chohan, an Indian-Canadian lawyer living in central Ottawa, said: "There were men walking in groups in front of our house with 'Make Canada Great Again' hats. I just started to feel like I don't want to go and put myself out there. "
and
There is "a sense of lack of safety for anyone who is not Caucasian, straight or on board with the protests", said Jessica Seguin, who fears for her child, who identifies as transgender.”
 |
| "Terrorizing our Residents & Torturing us with Honking" |
Let us be clear: an
unlawful threat needs to be directed, specific, made with the intent to cause
fear and be objectively capable of being presently carried out. Simply feeling
terrorized or intimidated because, because... does not qualify.
The sheer insanity of this subjectification of reality is illustrated by the fact that exactly the same argument is used by the Russian Orthodox Church to outlaw homosexuality and transgenderism in Russia. In fact the feminist Pussy Rioter got two years in jail for doing “inappropriate” aerobics in a church. The line between religious blasphemy and woke blasphemy is non-existent.
At bottom, what is called “woke” is simply a sociopathic ego. It is the conviction of an overweening self of its own preeminent and preemptive importance, which thereupon demands that the world conform to its sense of tranquility and gratification. It is precisely this which Voltaire had in mind when he stated “One gives the name of tyrant to the sovereign who knows no laws but those of his caprice.”
The political correctness demanded by an individual, an advocacy group, a social movement is, at bottom, merely obnoxious. It is comes with the territory of free speech. It is up to the rest of us to vigorously oppose it, but woketards do have a free speech right to preach and to shout their resented, puritanical hysteria. However, when that hysteria turns into legally enforced dogma, tyrany has replaced democracy.
I have no idea whether Trudeau really believes in his imbecilic woke platitudes -- if he really thinks that referring to the human race as peoplekind is somehow going to bring about economic “inclusion” of the poor -- or if he is just a KenDoll for his backroom handlers. In the end, it is immaterial. Trudeau occupies the the office of prime minister and in that official capacity is using his legal power to cancel people he disagrees with. He has become Canada's Lord Protector.
No government can be expected to tolerate prolonged sit-ins that obstruct traffic and impede the operations of normal life or of government. Eventually, the police will be brought in to disperse the crowd, usually with tear gas, water cannon and truncheons. The whole thing is a political ritual that mimics revolution but is really just a means of bringing popular pressure to bear.
The Parisians have elevated this political theatre to an art form. Huge rallies are held with such fever and fervour as to give the impression that, now, this time for real, revolution is imminent. The police arrive; there are confrontations; trash cans and some cars are burned. Rubber bullets are fired, and after a while the whole thing blows over. The government either backs down, back tracks or doesn't as the case may be.
But not only Paris. In Oaxaca too. During a visit I made, the outlying rural peasants wanted the government to build a school, a clinic and a road in their community. Their respectful delegation was turned away from the Governor's Palace. The peasants responded by marching on the state capital with banners, horns and chants. They were met by some nameless aide who received their demands and said he would forward them to the governor. Nothing happened and so, after a while, the entire community, including women, children and burros marched into the city at night, holding torches, and took over the main plaza. They camped out in front of the palace so vigorously as to put the government under siege. The occupation lasted close to a week. By day five, it all looked really serious. “Is this the insurrection?” I asked. “Nah,” came the reply, “the governor will meet with them, in the next day or two.” “And?” “And, they'll get met half way.” And so it was. The campesinos got the road and the promise of a school, but no commitment on the clinic.
|
| Democracy in Action, Oaxaca Style |
Thus, tolerance of protests is not simply “honouring” the principle of free speech and assembly. It is also the way democratic government is supposed to work. I will repeat the idea: the Trucker Protest was not an exception to democratic norms it was part and parcel of them. With this in mind, it can be said that what Trudeau actually did was to supplant democracy with the petulance of a despot.
We would do well to examine in detail the “caprice” of a tyrant. It begins, of course, giving preeminence to one's own desires or conceived goods. But, by its very egotism, this preeminence works to exclude the thoughts and desires of others. It then surpasses into denial, denigration and ultimately cancelling out anyone of anything who dares to diverge. In other words, disagreement turns into depersonalization.
"Power is wonderful. Total power is totally wonderful." --Mme Nhu
Madame Nhu was
South Vietnam's de facto first lady, described by Robert McNamara as
“beautiful, but diabolical and scheming—a true sorceress.” Her attitude toward
political opponents was distilled in her statement "We will track down,
neutralize and extirpate all these scabby sheep.” Buddhist monks began mass
protests and one of them -- to shock of the Western World which had never seen
such thing on dinner time television -- immolated himself in front of the
National Palace. When asked about the immolation by an American correspondent,
Mme Nhu shrugged it off as “just human babacue”.
Other than calling a Jewish MP a Nazi, Trudeau has not barbecued that far; but, in a way he goes even farther. Belittling the mob is nothing autocrats and tyrants have not done before. But Trudeau has not left it at belittling. He goes out of his way to cancel opposition -- not just opposition on the street but in Parliament as well.
Watching the question periods over the past several days, I have been struck at how Trudeau never answers a question put to him. He doesn't weasel around. He doesn't just give an evasive answer. He doesn't answer at all. Debating with him is like debating with a self-activating juke box. Whatever, the question is, the prime minister simply selects a pre-recorded message and replays it. One might as well talk to a wall. But when the wall happens to hold political power, the result is to turn opposition into nothing of any account; a nothing that needn't even be answered and, by not being answered, is ignored into irrelevance and non-existence.
Trudeau's pre-recorded non-answers, mindlessly repeating his party's line, however non-sensical that line might be, is exasperating, at first. One is tempted to think that he his making a fool of himself, until one realizes that the joke is on us. His language is not as colourful as Mme Nhu's but the effect is the same. Anyone who does not submit to his will is simply cancelled out by being completely ignored.
All this became clear even before His Supremacy invoked the Emergency Act. Once that Act was invoked, Trudeau put fang and dagger into his caprice. The emergency legislation allows the government not only to culturally cancel opponents but to juridically and economically cancel them as well. Seizing property (bank accounts) without notice and hearing -- without the rock bottom fundamentals of due process -- is exactly the sort of thing tyrants do.
It makes no difference that the victims of this state action might have “broken the law;” for it is axiomatic that whom the State will destroy it first outlaws.
Seizing and freezing bank accounts is particularly onerous in our present day economy. A person's bank card or credit card is, in effect, his internal passport. Without it he can go nowhere, rent nothing, do nothing. Deprived of it he is relegated to a virtual Siberia. This type of depersonalization was precisely the sort of thing done by Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Only today it can be done digitally and bloodlessly.
Was this turn of events really the brain child of a pretty boy imbecile who shows no great capacity for anything above wearing colourful, zany socks and mouthing woke pieties? I seriously doubt it. The finger of my suspicion points toward the deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland.
Freeland is the quintessential neo-liberal apparatchik. She began her
career as a journalist for the mainstream financial media. When she opted to
go into politics she was in charge of negotiating various international
trade-deals, in particular the renogatiation of NAFTA. It is hardly a surmise
that she is a devotée of the Rising Tide Theory of economics and that trade
and profit is her summum bonum for society.
No doubt she went into alarm mode when the Ambassador bridge was blockaded for a few days, causing the Ford plant to shutdown. Certainly, her neo-liberal counterparts in the U.S.A. did. Negatively impacting the economic well being of small fry is one thing; an economic inconvenience to a trans-national corporation is quite another. One would do well to keep in mind that behind all the palaver about inclusion, multi-culturalism, and woke piety, the real correctness that matters is inter-state commerce and the corporate bottom line.
Announcing his invocation of the Act, Trudeau spoke as follows: “[C]ritical supply chains have been disrupted... those people who disagree with [our] measures.. have gone from protesting ... to limiting and blocking the freedom of their fellow citizens, hurting jobs and livelihoods ... weakening our country not just right now but at times to come in the eyes of our most important trading partners....”
Who is Canada's “most important” trading partner, if not the United States? What Trudeau announced was that by not taking a draconian hard line Canada was being “weakened” in the eyes of the United States. In other words, we are left to surmise that the Biden Administration told Canada to get tough and crack down on the protestors, by turning an inconvenient democratic protest into a national issue with all the attendant buzzwords.
In this connection, it is relevant to know that during her career as trade negotiator, Freeland has been a strong advocate of the use of economic sanctions against “non-complying” competitors or actors. Following up on Trudeau's blather, Freeland got specific:
Other than calling a Jewish MP a Nazi, Trudeau has not barbecued that far; but, in a way he goes even farther. Belittling the mob is nothing autocrats and tyrants have not done before. But Trudeau has not left it at belittling. He goes out of his way to cancel opposition -- not just opposition on the street but in Parliament as well.
Watching the question periods over the past several days, I have been struck at how Trudeau never answers a question put to him. He doesn't weasel around. He doesn't just give an evasive answer. He doesn't answer at all. Debating with him is like debating with a self-activating juke box. Whatever, the question is, the prime minister simply selects a pre-recorded message and replays it. One might as well talk to a wall. But when the wall happens to hold political power, the result is to turn opposition into nothing of any account; a nothing that needn't even be answered and, by not being answered, is ignored into irrelevance and non-existence.
Trudeau's pre-recorded non-answers, mindlessly repeating his party's line, however non-sensical that line might be, is exasperating, at first. One is tempted to think that he his making a fool of himself, until one realizes that the joke is on us. His language is not as colourful as Mme Nhu's but the effect is the same. Anyone who does not submit to his will is simply cancelled out by being completely ignored.
All this became clear even before His Supremacy invoked the Emergency Act. Once that Act was invoked, Trudeau put fang and dagger into his caprice. The emergency legislation allows the government not only to culturally cancel opponents but to juridically and economically cancel them as well. Seizing property (bank accounts) without notice and hearing -- without the rock bottom fundamentals of due process -- is exactly the sort of thing tyrants do.
It makes no difference that the victims of this state action might have “broken the law;” for it is axiomatic that whom the State will destroy it first outlaws.
Seizing and freezing bank accounts is particularly onerous in our present day economy. A person's bank card or credit card is, in effect, his internal passport. Without it he can go nowhere, rent nothing, do nothing. Deprived of it he is relegated to a virtual Siberia. This type of depersonalization was precisely the sort of thing done by Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Only today it can be done digitally and bloodlessly.
Was this turn of events really the brain child of a pretty boy imbecile who shows no great capacity for anything above wearing colourful, zany socks and mouthing woke pieties? I seriously doubt it. The finger of my suspicion points toward the deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland.
|
| "...liberal democracies are being confronted with serious and repeated threats..." |
No doubt she went into alarm mode when the Ambassador bridge was blockaded for a few days, causing the Ford plant to shutdown. Certainly, her neo-liberal counterparts in the U.S.A. did. Negatively impacting the economic well being of small fry is one thing; an economic inconvenience to a trans-national corporation is quite another. One would do well to keep in mind that behind all the palaver about inclusion, multi-culturalism, and woke piety, the real correctness that matters is inter-state commerce and the corporate bottom line.
Announcing his invocation of the Act, Trudeau spoke as follows: “[C]ritical supply chains have been disrupted... those people who disagree with [our] measures.. have gone from protesting ... to limiting and blocking the freedom of their fellow citizens, hurting jobs and livelihoods ... weakening our country not just right now but at times to come in the eyes of our most important trading partners....”
Who is Canada's “most important” trading partner, if not the United States? What Trudeau announced was that by not taking a draconian hard line Canada was being “weakened” in the eyes of the United States. In other words, we are left to surmise that the Biden Administration told Canada to get tough and crack down on the protestors, by turning an inconvenient democratic protest into a national issue with all the attendant buzzwords.
In this connection, it is relevant to know that during her career as trade negotiator, Freeland has been a strong advocate of the use of economic sanctions against “non-complying” competitors or actors. Following up on Trudeau's blather, Freeland got specific:
"As part of invoking the emergency act, we are announcing the following immediate actions First, we are broadening the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rule so that they cover crowd funding platforms... These changes apply to all forms of transactions... [The blockade] has highlighted the fact that crowd funding platforms ... are not fully captured under the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing act.
Connecting the dots, what we
are witnessing is far more than the capricious excesses of a clown turned prime
minister. We are witnessing the culminating stages of the security state that began on
9/11. What are the supposed threats to liberal
democracy Freeland has in mind? By "liberal democracy" Freeland means a
country that is locked into the hegemony of the Western free-trade and self
defence alliance; our so-called "Open Society" founded on the Four Freedoms of
free movement of capital, goods, services and people. These "democracies" (or
more accurately, "departments") within the global free trade alliance conceive
themselves to be "threatened" by rival geo-political blocks and non-state
actors such as terrorists and criminal cartels. Fine. But to equate the
protesting truckers with Russian oligarchs, China, Iran and Al Qaeda would be
lunatic were it not so dangerous.
And outrageous. Trudeau and his minions assure us that application of the emergency measures will be done consistently with the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. Since when is the non-judicial seizure of assets without hearing consistent with Due Process de Ley -- a concept dating back to Magna Carta? You know 1215 and all that.
In the name of rooting out terrorism and organized crime, and then a pandemic, states around the world have put their citizens under surveillance and restrictions. Under the rubric of fighting “misinformation” or “the spreading of hate,” so-called "liberal democracies" have trawled and censored the internet commons in order to silence anyone who diverges from their social agenda and standards of "appropriateness." Now, with Canada as the stalking horse, the same actors are going for the jugular by cutting off the financial wherewithall to organize and mount any protest not approved of by our overlords. They want to be able to defund -- financially censor -- any opposition to their rule and their economic status quo. Don't be fooled into thinking that only “large” sums are at issue. The same spirit of intolerance that animates political correctness also aims to suppress and destroy any opposition. Whether it is the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russia, Communist China or, now, Canada, the hammer of repression always smashes down on the most defenceless.
Needless to say, the Ken Doll mouths the usual meaningless assurances. The “scope of these measures” he says in his condescending, didactic tone of voice, will be “limited, reasonable and proportionate.” They are “not blanket measures.” They will be “bounded” and specifically targeted. Oh whew! I thought they might be applied generally. No, no, no. They are merely “tools” that “can be used when and where necessary.” Last I looked, Canada was “bounded” by two oceans and “where necessary” would include any place in between.
Trudeau assures us that the measures will only be temporary. But what he forgets to mention is that even if they only lasted an hour, they would forever serve as precedent. And the precedent established, is that what the government does not like it can prohibit, preempt, preclude, and destroy.
Trudeau has stated that the mandates will be lifted when Canada attains 100% vaccination. That is a literally a totalitarian goal which mistakes human society for a laboratory. Of course to achieve this absolutist goal it is necessary to put in place commensurate bureaucratic means of compliance and control. CANPASS for example. Requiring. Coding. Tagging. Monitoring. Supposing for the sake of argument that such measures were needed out the outset of the pandemic, it ought not be forgotten that all bureaucracies, like all organisms, seek to self-perpetuate. Not only are techie careers at stake, politicians behold the tool and think that it is too neat and nifty not to be used for something. To this, the Government now engrafts mechanisms of financial monitoring and forfeiture. “Total Safety” like “Total War!” is the perfect totalitarian stew.
Why is this happening in Canada, one of the most placid and peaceful places on earth? Is it because it is so peaceful and placid that it equates a noisy trucker protest with a terrorist attack that kills thousands? That is certainly part of the equation. Loud talk becomes shouting to someone accustomed to silence. But by the same token, objectively speaking, the Trucker Protest was nothing more than loud talk. It was not an assault on Parliament with tire wrenches. Despite all Trudeau's denigrating and inflammatory accusation, the government has never disseminated pictures of the avowed symbols of hate or the alleged incidents of terrorizing old ladies like Diane Deans...
While almost everything else Trudeau has stated was either woke nonsense or sophistical tricks and traps, his statement that the protests were weakening Canada “at times to come in the eyes of our most important trading partners....” was clear and to the point: the United States wanted a crack-down. Well... it would not be the first time in history that the United States has called upon one of its allies or satraps (which are much the same thing) to mow down the strikers, the protestors, the opposition. (Why does Chile, come to mind?)
In the name of rooting out terrorism and organized crime, and then a pandemic, states around the world have put their citizens under surveillance and restrictions. Under the rubric of fighting “misinformation” or “the spreading of hate,” so-called "liberal democracies" have trawled and censored the internet commons in order to silence anyone who diverges from their social agenda and standards of "appropriateness." Now, with Canada as the stalking horse, the same actors are going for the jugular by cutting off the financial wherewithall to organize and mount any protest not approved of by our overlords. They want to be able to defund -- financially censor -- any opposition to their rule and their economic status quo. Don't be fooled into thinking that only “large” sums are at issue. The same spirit of intolerance that animates political correctness also aims to suppress and destroy any opposition. Whether it is the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russia, Communist China or, now, Canada, the hammer of repression always smashes down on the most defenceless.
Needless to say, the Ken Doll mouths the usual meaningless assurances. The “scope of these measures” he says in his condescending, didactic tone of voice, will be “limited, reasonable and proportionate.” They are “not blanket measures.” They will be “bounded” and specifically targeted. Oh whew! I thought they might be applied generally. No, no, no. They are merely “tools” that “can be used when and where necessary.” Last I looked, Canada was “bounded” by two oceans and “where necessary” would include any place in between.
Trudeau assures us that the measures will only be temporary. But what he forgets to mention is that even if they only lasted an hour, they would forever serve as precedent. And the precedent established, is that what the government does not like it can prohibit, preempt, preclude, and destroy.
Trudeau has stated that the mandates will be lifted when Canada attains 100% vaccination. That is a literally a totalitarian goal which mistakes human society for a laboratory. Of course to achieve this absolutist goal it is necessary to put in place commensurate bureaucratic means of compliance and control. CANPASS for example. Requiring. Coding. Tagging. Monitoring. Supposing for the sake of argument that such measures were needed out the outset of the pandemic, it ought not be forgotten that all bureaucracies, like all organisms, seek to self-perpetuate. Not only are techie careers at stake, politicians behold the tool and think that it is too neat and nifty not to be used for something. To this, the Government now engrafts mechanisms of financial monitoring and forfeiture. “Total Safety” like “Total War!” is the perfect totalitarian stew.
Why is this happening in Canada, one of the most placid and peaceful places on earth? Is it because it is so peaceful and placid that it equates a noisy trucker protest with a terrorist attack that kills thousands? That is certainly part of the equation. Loud talk becomes shouting to someone accustomed to silence. But by the same token, objectively speaking, the Trucker Protest was nothing more than loud talk. It was not an assault on Parliament with tire wrenches. Despite all Trudeau's denigrating and inflammatory accusation, the government has never disseminated pictures of the avowed symbols of hate or the alleged incidents of terrorizing old ladies like Diane Deans...
While almost everything else Trudeau has stated was either woke nonsense or sophistical tricks and traps, his statement that the protests were weakening Canada “at times to come in the eyes of our most important trading partners....” was clear and to the point: the United States wanted a crack-down. Well... it would not be the first time in history that the United States has called upon one of its allies or satraps (which are much the same thing) to mow down the strikers, the protestors, the opposition. (Why does Chile, come to mind?)
But I am struck by the curious and ill fitting phrase “at times to come.” Evidently more was involved than just calling Canada a pussy for not taking stronger measures. Canada was proving itself to be unreliably weak for something in the future. What one wonders is forthcoming? This is a very sad day in Canadian history and it bodes not-well for other countries in the alliance of "liberal democracies."
Trudeau's suspension of rights has followed the tyrants' playbook to a "T". He has sanctimoniously, demonized his opposition and spooked the people. He has wrapped himself in tissues of inclusion and harmony while refusing to dialogue with the truckers and crushing protestors with hoof and truncheon. He has resorted to sophistry and innuendo while pretending to speak only the factual truth. And all of this he has done in the name of public health, public safety, maple syrup and hockey. It is par for the tyrant's course and Trudeau's self-sanctifying woke certitudes make him the ideal creature to carry out a despot's program.
What is shocking is how many MPs have followed along without protest. They have done so because they have been brainwashed by political correctness for over three decades. All despotisms adhere to and mandate a chosen dogma. All dogmas are cultured, curated and guarded by theological, ideological or sociological "experts" who instruct us on all we need to know and avoid. Fearsome shibboleths and bogeymen are cultivated to keep fear alive and, thereby, induce conformity and compliance. The only difference between Old Dogma and Woke Dogma is that the latter pretends to appreciate, value and be inclusive of differences.... all except those that must not be tolerated. In short, the Liberal-NDP coalition truly believe their dogma and are thus incapable of fathoming the damage they have done to freedom and the rule of law.
Trudeau's despotic declaration of a state of emergency is a sad day for the rule of law in Canada. That it was declared legally is as irrelevant as the fact that the Law for the Protection of Folk and Reich (1933) was also legally enacted. Freedom and Due Process are sides of a single coin; when one is suspended so is the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment