Descent Into Tyranny by Election

 

 There is a saying that I have come across quite a bit over the last several years. This saying is, "You vote yourself into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it." The irony of this situation is that under socialism, the government tends to confiscate all the guns under the guise of protecting the people.

I have been thinking about the warning that I gave at the end of my last article. We need to be on the alert against governments taking absolute control of our civilization. We know that this is the tendency of people who attain to any level of power. This is not necessarily a left versus right phenomenon. I think this is just a bent, or strong inclination, of mankind. I also think that we can arrive at a place where we live under a totalitarian government through entirely innocent means if we are not careful. Or maybe if not by entirely innocent means, at least by using the justification of good. Here is another saying that we should be aware of, because it seems to sum up the direction that western democracies have been travelling for a good 10 to 20 years already; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

How often do we hear our government propose some new law that they want to put on the books and they justify it as a means by which to protect the weak? I think now of our Canadian Liberal government's Bill C-63, which as of the prorogation of our parliament is essentially dead in the water, for which I am very grateful. This bill is called "An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts".

This name intones some very important things that we should look to do as a society. Protect people from online harms - check. Require mandatory reporting of internet child pornography - double check. Create a government commission whose responsibility it is to monitor the internet and enforce the government mandated rules -...wait...What!?

Okay, I understand that there must be some method of enforcement for any law that is placed on the books, but we need to consider the consequences of our words and our actions. This is not simply a tool for police to use when a legitimate complaint arises and is brought forward, which is then handled by an already existing judiciary; this is an entirely new bureaucracy whose sole intention is to monitor the internet for violations of the code and to seek enforcement against those who are deemed to have offended the code. This is additional bureaucracy that will cost taxpayer monies for at least one office with attendant staff and other costs. This will likely rise into the multi-million dollar range for annual costs, especially if the current government's fiscal management practices are allowed to continue.

What is more concerning is what this commission, and it's ombudsperson (because under Justin Trudeau we are now too aware to use the misogynist term ombudsman anymore), will be watching for a broad range of offences. These offences include "2 (1) content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍" According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the following is a list of grounds for a complaint of violation of human rights;     race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or  expression, marital status, family status, disability, genetic characteristics, a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended".[a]

Let's stop and think about that definition for a moment.content that expresses detestation or vilification of. I very much dislike the LGBT+ alliance and everything they stand for. I detest the way that transgenderism is being foisted on the young people of the west as a solution to puberty related discomfort. I detest that people are being forced into accepting that people can simply claim to be the opposite, or even a made up gender, and we are not only supposed to comply with this delusion with our language, but support it with our actions and our tax dollars. Virtually this entire above paragraph would get me reported under Bill C-63. There is no hate. I am not telling anybody else to hate them. But since I am writing it on a public forum, there may be others who may feel brave enough to state their same sentiments, and if they do, they could also be reported under this law. Is this right? Can this lead to the weaponization of the legal system to suppress ideas that people of this alliance disagree with? Absolutely! We have already seen examples of this in the real world.

Over the years, I have been observing some of the types of complaints that have been brought before the Human Rights Commission. There are some legitimate complaints, but the commission has also entertained complaints that they should be dismissing. In particular, complaints made by members of the LGBT+ community have gotten inordinate support. In my opinion, the Human Rights Commission should be shut down. There are already laws on the books that are enforceable by our current judiciary, but because these types of violations are overlooked by the judiciary except in the most grievous of cases, typically those involving physical harm or property damage, the minority pushed for a commission that may look into all complaints, no matter how minor. We had a system that was not broken which has been sidestepped in order to make a broken system.

Let's consider for a moment some of the categories of complaints that this internet ombudsman would look into. The three that really jump out at me are the categories of religion, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Complaints of these natures will be aimed largely at the others, which make these complaints mutually exclusive in many instances. The three main religions in the world are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three of these religions maintain that the only acceptable sexual orientation is heterosexual and that there are only two genders, male and female, that these are assigned by God at birth, and that the two are immutable and cannot be changed. This opens up all religious organizations to complaints against them by members of these two other groups. And we have already been seeing the militarization of these minority groups, against the Christian church in particular, for perceived slights under these protections. You would think that the protection of religious beliefs would cancel out the complaints of these minorities against the churches, but the Commission doesn't seem to recognize the dissonance of this. These minority groups should not be able to have a complaint against a religiously held belief upheld, because this is, in it's very nature, a violation of the rights of the religious group.

I don't want to delve into the specifics of this topic too extensively, as that is not the point of this article. I merely wanted to point out that as governments act to protect the supposed rights of certain minority groups, they will, intentionally or not, step on the rights of other groups. In fact, our current Liberal government has enacted many bills into law that have been written using such broad and loose wording that they have created myriad situations where the law has to be challenged before the courts simply to determine if there is a basis to lay charges that the law has been contravened or not. That then leaves the definition and limits of the law in the hands of the selected judges rather than the elected parliamentarians. This takes the matter of the construction of the laws of the land out of the hands of the electorate and places it instead in the hands of unelected judges who will bear no consequence for laying their own prejudices over top of the spirit of the law.

Again, to draw it back to the intent of this article, we are looking at this same structure being created to monitor and even to censor the internet. In fact, there is even a section under the duties of the Commission and the Ombudsman that states that upon the discovery of violation of this law, even prior to the determination of guilt, the commission "67 (1)(a) "must make that content inaccessible to all persons in Canada". Now, I must point out that this provision is intended to be used specifically in the case of the sexual victimization or re-victimization of a child, which is admirable and arguably right. My only concern relates to the inevitable expansion of this power, through a simple amendment to the law, that will allow for the censorship of other materials, potentially even in the political realm.

Another aspect of this bill that draws some concern is the authority to designate inspectors and the rights of said inspectors. These are not trained law enforcement officers, these are simply people whom the Commission "considers qualified for the purposes of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act." 90 (1) This act gives these inspectors the power to enter "any place in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is any document, information or other thing relevant to that purpose" 91 (1), and they are even allowed to enter by means of telecommunication, meaning that they can enter your computer or network remotely, even without your permission, as long as they notify you that they are doing so 91 (2). While perusing your devices remotely, they have the power to examine, copy and take for further examination any document or information that they deem is relevant, without opportunity for refutation by the holder of the information or document as to it's relevance 91 (4). There is one small safeguard in that the inspectors do need a warrant in order to enter a residence, but that warrant will be sought after without the knowledge or ability for intervention by the individual being investigated.

These are some pretty broad ranging powers given to people who are selected by the government of the time, and who are given power to designate other people of their own choosing to grant to them broad powers of search and seizure. In the matter of protecting children from online exploitation, sexual or others, I think there are few mentally stable people who would protest these powers. However, these inspection powers are not limited to suspected matters of child exploitation, but are enforceable under all aspects of this legislation. Do you think that the governments that enact these types of laws will work to choose people to fill these positions who are affiliated with all different political or religious groups, or will they make sure that they choose people who are ideologically aligned with themselves and their party politics? This creates a scenario for future abuses by the government to investigate those whom they see as dissidents to their own causes, including search and seizure powers, without the means to force them to justify their search and prosecution through the means of the assertion of the rights of the ones being investigated.

But here is the clincher in all of this. This is neither a left wing or a right wing issue. While we have witnessed the left wing governments around the world trying to, and even successfully to many degrees, assert their authority over their own citizens (think the Covid era), this has largely been done to the cheers and sometimes even the behest of the electorate. Ideally in a democratic (I use this term loosely) system of governance, the government is supposed to act according to the will of the people. To a certain degree, our current Liberal government in Canada has been able to argue that they have acted according to the will of the people. What they fail to disclose is who the people are that they are listening to and who are they ignoring. There will always be people who react in fear to anything that is new, and if the government is using propaganda to exaggerate the situation and foment more fear, then they can rightly be accused of creating the circumstances to support their own despotic actions. Then the government can listen to the minority of the voices with whom they agree and ignore the others. This is not how it should be, but again, when people attain to a position of power, unchecked, they will pursue more power.

We have seen the left leaning political parties using the "will of the people" as a means by which they justify their movements towards totalitarianism. Again, look back to Covid lockdowns, mask and "vaccine" mandates as well as travel restrictions, all of which contravene our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then we can also look to the gun restrictions that Justin Trudeau has enacted wishes that he could further enact. This is the gradual disarming of the populace. Remember how you can vote yourself in to socialism but you have to shoot your way out? This is how that scenario plays out, for the protection of the public, you know. 

I would rather see governments act responsibly in the matter of protecting the freedoms and rights of it's citizens. The government should act according to the will of the people, but it should do so in the direction of reducing regulations and laws and promoting the freedom of the people. I would love to say that this is what we see from the right leaning political parties, and it used to be so, but I can't with any confidence state that this is to be expected any longer. I say this mostly as an observer of world events in light of Scripture rather than from an observational standpoint of what I am currently observing in the Canadian political sphere. Pierre Poilievre talks a good game about freedom and economic growth of the individual, but we'll see how he follows through in the next few months.

I guess all of this is to say that no matter who we all vote for, and who attains to the seat of leadership in any country, we need to be on the lookout for and speak up against actions being taken that will strip us of our rights and freedoms, especially if those rights are the ones that protect our right to speak truth.

All references to the wording of Bill C-63 are taken from https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading.

Please let me know what you think by using the comments section below.

[a] https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/node/38