Author: fredalanmedforth
Is the Canadian Government Starting a Civil War? Trudeau to protesters: If you don’t let our government make your health decisions, we’re willing to shoot you
The Premier of Ontario has declared what he calls a “state of emergency” to justify the Canadian government’s removal of the truckers and their trucks from Ottawa.
Others, however, could view his statement to more closely resemble a Declaration of War.
You decide. I urge you to watch the video of the Premier’s statement for yourself.
According to the Premier, each trucker they arrest will face up to one year in prison, have to pay fines up to $100,000 and may likely forfeit their trucks to the Crown!
The Premier’s position is that the truckers protesting Canada’s mandate requiring truckers to be vaccinated have no “right” to block the roads of Ontario.
He does not, however, satisfactorily address the truckers’ other “rights,” like their right to protest wrongful and immoral actions of their government or even to make their own healthcare decisions.
Moreover, the Premier completely overlooks the reality that the Canadian government could alleviate the “emergency” in the blink of an eye, if it were willing to remove its tyrannical mandate dictating that all truck drivers shall either receive a vaccine shot or forfeit their “right” to make a living.
In essence, it appears the government of Canada has chosen to declare war on its own people instead of restoring to its citizens their “unalienable” rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Civil wars — i.e. revolutions – have been started for far lesser reasons.
And for what?
What are Trudeau and his minions thinking? Why are they willing to unleash possibly lethal force to enforce a diktat on unwilling people that, by all reports is, at best, an ineffective medical experiment. As such, their mandate should more likely be found not only immoral, but unlawful. On this point, Trudeau’s government need go no further than a consideration of the moral, ethical and legal predicates underlying the Nuremburg Code that, in reference to medical experimentation on humans — like the Covid vaccinations — provides, in pertinent part: The voluntary consent of the human subject — i.e. each individual trucker — is absolutely essential. (emphasis added)
By contrast, however, what people like Trudeau are telling the people of Canada is: If you don’t let our government make your health decisions, we’re willing to shoot you.
How is that for the good of public health?
That said, please pray for our Canadian brothers and sisters. Tragically — based on the Premier’s statement — it seems highly foreseeable that at least some Canadians are about to suffer harshly for trying to protect their rights… which appears to be what always happens whenever a totalitarian regime is allowed to seize and retain control of any nation.
Of course, the gaping question this leaves for the world to reflect upon yet again is how should the people of any nation be able to define what it is to properly “protest” against the evils of such a regime in defense of one’s unalienable rights?
Specifically, are protests to be constrained only to such actions that the regime exclusively decides are both “lawful” and “peaceful?”
Some would say, it must be both. Otherwise, they say, some Canadians could quickly find themselves being accused of things like treason, insurrection and/or sedition by a “regime” such as Trudeau’s. But, the problem with this is that many laws such a regime may consider “lawful” may not necessarily always be “moral,” which makes a citizen’s opposition even to those laws that are immoral to be unlawful — i.e. to violate even a law considered immoral is still, technically, unlawful
For example, consider our cherished Declaration of Independence here in America. In large part, it was written for the exact purpose of protesting King George’s immoral laws and procedures. However, under the King’s laws on the books in 1776, that Declaration presented the King with nothing less than clear evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit crimes against the Crown – which, of course, made the proclamations of our founding fathers “unlawful.” At a minimum, this requires one to conclude that our founding fathers at some point must have decided that trying to remain “lawful” in the course of protesting an evil regime is most assuredly not always possible. That is, if those protesting the laws issued by the Crown ever hope to succeed.
Logic and reason also present similar problems with respect to the concept of protestors only having recourse to “peaceful” means when attempting to resist the evil of a tyrannical regime.
If tyrannies throughout history have proven anything, it is that sometimes to achieve success, actions must be taken by those on the side of “good” that necessarily must often fall far short of what may be considered “peaceful.” For instance, consider World War II. To successfully protest the evils of Hitler’s Nazi regime required actions to be taken by U.S. forces that were about as “peaceful” as those that were taken by George Washington to successfully protest the evils practices of the British Crown. Clearly, neither of these stands taken by Americans to “protest” the evil of their day were remotely even “mostly peaceful.” Yet, both are undeniable instances where violence was absolutely necessary and appropriate to defeat the evils presented at those moments in our nation’s history.
Which, of course, then leaves us with the question of whether the rights of the Canadian truckers that are presently at stake are of such fundamental importance that the merits of the protest warrant an escalation to acts of resistance that are either or both unlawful or unpeaceful?
No doubt, most of us would sincerely hope to conclude they are not yet at that place. And, in fact, anyone with any sanity would most certainly want to cling to the hope as long as possible that they never will be drawn to such a place where bloodshed results almost invariably.
Nor is this analysis of the Ontario Premier’s state of emergency a call for such a civil war – or, if you prefer, revolution — to transpire in Canada!
But, with that said, it is equally important to note, that’s not to say by this discourse that such a civil war in Canada’s immediate future is not possible.
The truth is somewhere in between – consequent to the Ontario Premier’s declaration this week, some form of civil war in Canada seems far more likely to happen – and now even more foreseeable — in the days to come than appeared to be the case even the day before the Premier of Ontario issued his government’s threat to the truckers. And, for all concerned, that trend is not a good thing.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/02/canadian-government-starting-civil-war-cliff-n/
Douglas Murray: Justin Trudeau should fall over handling of Canadian trucker protest
Dr. Zelenko On Vaccines During Active Pandemics: “Causing Evolutionary Pressure To Create More Dangerous Variants”
Quebec Leaders CLASH With Trudeau’s Government
80% of Police Feel Public Don’t Respect Them. They’re Right. This is why
The Islamist killer of Father Hamel had posted on social media: “You take a knife, you go into a church, you make a bloodbath, you cut off two, three heads”
Could the murder of Father Hamel have been prevented? This question cannot be answered, but the errors of the secret services are at the heart of the trial taking place before the Special Jury Court in Paris. Nevertheless, the five agents of these services do not plan to appear at the hearing.
These anti-terror police officers were monitoring the social networks. A week before the attack, they had tracked down hate messages and identified the author: Adel Kermiche, who was under electronic ankle bracelet at his home in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray (Seine-Maritime). On 19 July, he had posted: “You take a knife, you go to a church, you make a bloodbath”, but the police officers had not informed the DGSI, the Central Intelligence Service. The presiding judge of the jury court must decide whether to force the five policemen to testify. Franceinfo
(…) Especially on his Telegram channel called “Haqq-Wad’Dalil”, which he had started on June 11, 2016. A few days before the attack, on July 21, an officer of the DRPP (Direction du renseignement de la préfecture de police de Paris) came across Adel Kermiche’s channel, on which he posted 118 photos, three videos, 89 voice messages… In response to a question from an internet user, he had replied: …] If I personally had the opportunity to carry out an assassination, i.e. weapons, the whole shebang, the whole shebang, to be honest, you have to catch such an opportunity immediately…. Ouest-France
German dictionary removes warning that the word ‘Jew’ is discriminatory
The main dictionary of standard German has altered its definition of Jew (“Jude” in German) after being castigated by the German Jewish community for a recent update of the definition that explained the word could be considered discriminatory.
The online edition of the Duden dictionary had changed the definition of Jew to include a caveat that “occasionally, the term Jew is perceived as discriminatory because of the memory of the National Socialist use of language. In these cases, formulations such as Jewish people, Jewish fellow citizens or people of the Jewish faith are usually chosen.”
But the Associated Press reported that the updated definition caused a backlash from German Jewish groups and members of the Jewish community who were livid, explaining that many Jewish people call themselves Jews and that the word itself is not offensive, contrary to the new definition.
“Even if ‘Jew’ is used pejoratively in schoolyards or only hesitantly by some people, and the Duden editors are certainly well-meaning in pointing out this context, everything should be done to avoid solidifying the term as discriminatory,” Joseph Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said in a statement.
Daniel Botmann, the executive director of the Central Council of Jews, emphasized the absurdity of the new definition in a Twitter post.
“Is it okay to say Jew? Yes! Please don’t say ‘Jewish fellow citizens’ or ‘people of the Jewish faith’. Just JEWS. Thank you!” he wrote.
In response to the outcry, the online dictionary definition was changed and now says: “Because of antisemitic usage in the past and present, especially during the National Socialist era, the words Jew/Jewish have been debated by the language community for decades. At the same time, the words are widely used as a matter of course and are not perceived as problematic. The Central Council of Jews in Germany, which uses the name itself, advocates its use.”
Ottawa Residents Are Now Carrying Around Empty Gas Cans to Throw Off Authorities Trying to End the Trucker Protest
Muslims flee French secularism to Erdogan’s Turkey
Fleeing the “Islamophobia” which the Turkish president accuses France of, hundreds of French Muslims have chosen to move to Turkey.
Thibault, a first name he chose, is 32 years old and has a full red beard. He is affable, but also a little suspicious. “The former baker from the Isère department, who converted to Islam more than seven years ago, has been living in Istanbul with his wife and two children for almost eighteen months.
Against the background of the tense situation in France regarding Islam, the couple had first settled in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Norway before seeking the Hijra: emigration to a Muslim country. “We wanted to avoid assimilation and give our children an Islamic education so that they would remain Muslims their whole lives,” Thibault explains. He and his wife first thought of Egypt and Morocco, but Turkey, which is closer to France “in terms of mentality”, was an obvious choice for them.
Today, the couple has built a new life on the Bosphorus, with their children attending a local school where, Thibault warns, “some things are a bit strange”, as secularism still plays an important role in most public schools in Turkey. But despite some administrative difficulties related to the residence permit, the 30-year-old does not regret his exile in Istanbul. Even more so when he found a cash cow six months ago: exporting goods to a mainly French and Muslim clientele. Qurans, prayer rugs, abayas, Islamic rosaries or Siwak toothpaste – that is the range of products he offers on his Instagram account. “I am so overwhelmed by demand that I can no longer fulfil all the orders, especially with Ramadan just around the corner,” he says happily.
The pro-government Turkish press organs report in numerous articles about an “exodus” of Muslims fleeing “French Islamophobia” to Turkey, but the phenomenon seems to be limited all in all. However, it is undeniable that many Muslims in France have been attracted to Turkey for several years. For example, there are at least a dozen French influencers, mostly of Maghrebi origin, who are staging their emigration to Erdogan’s country. [Zia, a 25-year-old Franco-Tunisian from Lyon whose YouTube channel is followed by over 40,000 subscribers, moved to Istanbul almost two years ago with her French-Algerian husband. In a video, she explains how to ” practice one’s lifestyle ” while avoiding falling into the idolatry of New Age spiritualities. […]Le JDD