Artificial Nations

Recently, in the National Post, Lawrence Solomon wrote a very interesting article in which he criticized the two alternatives of withdrawing from any involvement in the Middle East and simply rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies as he put it. His third alternative was apparently to assist in the creation of smaller, ethnically homogenous states as I understand it. But a sentence leaped off the page that resonated in my mind as a much broader perception of the hundred year period from 1850 to 1950.

He said “the Western world has got to take responsibility for the artificial nations it has created.” He was speaking, of course, of the renunciation of colonialism that created such nations as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, and Libya. In each of these entities, he correctly identified that diverse and obviously hostile ethnic groups were confined within the same borders, and ultimately caused a form of radicalization and detachment from tradition and stability, which today is manifest in a strident anti-Americanism. He could equally have said that the creations of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the division and transfer of Prussia to Poland and to Russia, likewise created ethnic tensions which have never really been resolved.

It occurred to me that these perceptions cover a period of time from approximately 1850 to 1950, during which period the European powers abandoned the entities which they had amalgamated and administered as colonies. From a Western Canadian perspective, this particularly applied to the creation of Canada. It was, after all, the amalgamation of vast, diverse areas with conflicting interests, ideologies, languages, and cultures into one country which has emerged as a multicultural polyglot. Today, it reflects the modern version of United Nations chaos. It has, in fact, no identity, no culture, no common language, no flag that reflects any value whatsoever, but compromise, compromise, compromise.

As long as these entities, created artificially and completely without reference to ethnic identity, tradition, language, or culture, are involved in a period of relative prosperity, conflict does not appear to occur, but the Middle East is a perfect example of what in the long run will happen to every multicultural nation.

Canada is, today, an institution created by 19th Century thinking, by a group of colonial officials in London who wished to divest themselves of a vast, administrative nightmare, where for over 4000 miles of territory, they lacked sufficient resources to either police, control, or alternatively benefit. They made the practical decision of delegating all their authority to something “Canadian.” There never was, in actual fact, an entity known as Canada. In the same sense that today’s Syria is made up of conflicting groups, Alawites, Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’ite Muslim interests, there is an overwhelming tendency to impose authority by force, currently demonstrated by Hafez Assad, and in Libya for the same reason previously imposed by the Gadhafi family.

The West, in hope of its stability, had subsidized, supported, and in fact funded dictators like Saddam Hussein, Hafez Assad, and Gadhafi, all of whom they could deal with, much as they did with Egypt’s president, Mubarak, by giving them money. That whole system is coming unravelled today and the biggest area of stability appears to be the absolutely monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the rather polyglot nation of India. Pakistan, it appears, is lapsing into a form of narco-political anarchy.

All of these concerns demonstrate the fragility and lack of stable traditional harmony which a nation deserves and which a nation can achieve.

Mr. Solomon pointed out the success of the South Sudan separation from the north of Sudan. The latter is stridently Muslim and extremely hostile to the West and South Sudan is a proud ally of the West.

In the same way, Canada could be divided into the regions of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, being three separate entities, the four western provinces being one country with a common language and a common interest in resource production. Only over time could a common culture emerge, by a closer identification with the essential interests of the people living in the region. Canada today is a unique bastion of stability in a world of economic, debt-ridden chaos. Ireland, Europe, the United States, all former areas of wealth and prosperity, are sinking into debt depravity. Canada, on the other hand, supporting its economy essentially by the export of Western Canadian resources, is relatively stable with the continuing ignorance of Western Canadians that the wealth of Canada is being borne on their backs with the taxation they provide being used to subsidize such wasteful enterprise as the perpetual education at minimal cost of Quebec university students.

Gradually, Western Canadians are waking up, and much as the South Sudanese became much better off when they were free and independent, Western Canadians will soon learn the same salutary lesson. The essential ingredients of Western Separatism therefore are as follows:

1.) A realization of the colonial arrangement that created Canada.

2.) A realization of the costs of Confederation to Western Canada.

3.) The political will to do what is legally possible, ratified by the Clarity Act, and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is conduct a referendum for independence in each province of Western Canada, and amalgamate a nation from the provinces so choosing, with a regionally-elected Senate, a common language, common economic policy, smaller government, and constitutional rights of referendum, initiative, and recall.

The foregoing formula will rectify the irresponsible transfer of authority to the government of Canada of 1867, which once done was never possible to correct, change, or rectify, because of the fact its constitution became and was at that time, un-amendable and impossibly complicated.

Our job in the Western Block is to create a new wave of understanding, and a hope for the future by the recognition of the hundred years of irresponsibility that produced chaos around the world from 1850 to 1950, and from India to the Middle East to Canada, set up countries that had no right or benefit to their existence.

The Coming Police State

Recently, while watching an American television program called “Law & Order,” I heard a statement presented as an introduction to the program which truly shocked: “The criminal justice system has two parts, the police who apprehend criminals and the prosecutors who present evidence of their crimes in court.” To a vast audience of the young, naïve, and perhaps unsophisticated, this is all there is. I thought this might be just an American view, but then I began to think of my experience.

I thought of W. T.’s case, where the police seized my client’s sailboat which was his only home, $47,000 in cash which he held in trust from investors in his boat during repairs, and then they took his car. He was left with a bicycle and a hotel bill. His crime? He has never been convicted of any drug crime since 1994, when he was fined $400 for cultivating marijuana. He is not charged with any crime now, nor are any criminal charges pending against him. No need of proof, no need of evidence of crime, just seizure by Canada Border Agency and Civil Forfeiture. Why bother with courts? Just take what you want if you carry a gun.

I thought of Bruce Montague, a former gunsmith who because he objects to the gun registry, refuses to obtain licenses or registration of his vast gun collection. He securely hides them in a secret sealed room so even the police can’t find them. After a trial in which the myriad of complex gun laws are presented to a confused jury by a self-assured prosecutor, they convict him of unsafe storage, improper storage, and unlawful possession, and in 120 counts damn him for keeping his own property, safely. Unsatisfied with that, the government wants forfeiture of all the guns, ammunition, and other items seized. The court partly agrees. The province wants civil forfeiture of his log house, which he and his family built with their own hands from scratch. In that action, they have no right to remain silent, no right to a jury, no right to the presumption of innocence, and no right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The state needs only prove a balance of probabilities.

There are many more examples I could give, but I shall stop with these two examples. The first statement at the beginning of “Law & Order” reveals the premise of all the rest. There is no person ever wrongly accused, no need of a defence counsel, no need of an impartial judge, no need of a trial really. Just take the money, property, savings, and home of the alleged criminal. Crime pays – the State. Thus, a police state arrives with no dictatorial revolution. Why is this? There are three main reasons…

1. Firstly, the average Canadian wants to be nice and sees police as nice, so to be accepted as Canadian, they help police. This is supposed to be the way to prove patriotism in the minds of many. Police are well paid, respected, privileged, and trusted to carry guns, so they must be right. This is an impression based on prestige and the desire to be acceptable.

2. Secondly, the average Canadian can see what has happened to those who stand up to authority, to either question or reject (or as authorities would say “to defy”) authority. They can see what happens to those on the disapproval side of authority and they are very afraid it might happen to them. This is a very powerful impression based on fear, subtle unstated but effective fear.

3. Thirdly, there is a strong sense of conformity in society and an inherent belief in all groups that their leadership must be nice and benevolent. This permeates society because to believe otherwise creates discomfort, alienation, and among moral beings (to which category most ordinary people belong) a strong obligation to do something about it. Much easier to just believe in the system and if some G8 protester gets locked up without trial or charge, he or she must have done something wrong. This group delusion is based on the herd instinct, conformity, laziness, and comfort in the status quo. Put another way, change is uncomfortable and inertia prevents it.

What is the Remedy?

The police state is really the last phase of a decadent culture, in denial of its founding premises. It really appeals to all the worst features of an entrenched elite, to which everybody struggles to conform and to belong. This is precisely where Canada is now. The elite owns and controls the media, and elects the politicians, who appoint the judges, who impose the desires of the State with absolute unquestioning obedience. Canada has left power in the hands of a Central Canadian Mafia since 1867 and left the West and the Maritimes as useless appendages, of no consequence unless the opinions of the Ontario and Quebec mafia appear to disagree. In that case, the election is actually decided with votes from Western Canada.

So to restore true democracy, a Triple-E Senate, referendum, initiative, and recall, to re-establish a vision of liberty throughout our land, we must free the West. Change in Canada in a positive sense is impossible. Those who wanted a Triple-E Senate discovered this when they attempted to amend the constitution and ran head first into the wall of opposition in Ontario and Upper Canada. Improvement in a positive sense in Western Canada is inevitable and desirable. What can we in the West have? The essential alternative between a growing, intrusive, burdensome police state, ramming their way into our lives, or Independence and a whole new way of self-government where our voices really count. The bitterness of many at the growing police state requires a return to a peaceful referendum to avoid violence. Violence of any individual merely legitimizes much more effective violence by the state against the individual. Thus, we see our final goal of Independence as the only way for positive, constructive change and to sideline forever all talk of violence. Ordinary people need to join and support our movement for positive change.

The Story of Imre Finta

The attached article, written in Hungarian for those who speak or read that language, is a fairly accurate account of the Finta trial, which is sort of being reproduced now for a 97-year-old Hungarian in Hungary. The important difference is that under Hungarian law, he doesn't have the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence, or the right to a jury trial as was extended to Imre Finta.

As soon as the Finta case resulted in an acquittal on all eight counts, the government of Canada, under the advice and direction of Irwin Cotler, changed the law so that it was no longer possible to have a jury trial, the right to remain silent was taken away, and the presumption of innocence was replaced by a burden of proof upon the accused to, in effect, prove his innocence on a balance of probabilities. This was accomplished by changing the law into an immigration fraud case, pretending it was a civil matter. That's how the court in Canada under the Immigration Act, under the direction of Mr. Justice O'Reilly, tried Michael Seifert both in Italy and in Canada. This, of course, resulted in an acquittal of Michael Seifert, but by that time he had already been extradited to Italy, where he died some years later in an agonizing circumstance in an Italian jail.

The battle for justice continues and will never cease as long as there are those among us who are treated unjustly, and those others among us who are willing to fight that they be fairly and justly treated.

Why Indeed Does Canada Still Have a Hate Speech Law?

In further response to Andrew Coyne’s article of July 9, why indeed does Canada still have a hate speech law?

The United States, the largest and longest standing democracy in the world does not think it is necessary in their free and democratic society. Why should it be necessary in ours? Are we, therefore, to be viewed as somewhat less capable of making intelligent decisions than our American cousin?

The hate speech in Canada puts upon an accused an impossible burden of proving the proof of many opinions about history, for which there is no presently existing evidence, but upon which many people have legitimate differing views. The necessity for the accused to prove truth of a statement which is not necessarily damaging to anyone in particular is a bizarre state of law that could never be justified in a free and democratic society.

Racism is a natural reaction of people to being overrun by cultures of a different moral and ethnic character. It is not necessarily based upon hatred at all, and may very well be based upon a desire for perpetuation of one’s own identity, which is never considered inappropriate if you happen to be a visible minority.

The hypocrisy involved in hate speech laws is an amazing thing to behold, and those of us who desire to see those laws abolished have many good reasons, too extensive to be set out here in their entirety, but upon which a full and thorough debate should be taking place.

Andrew Coyne’s article published in the National Post, of Tuesday July 10 was a useful and important beginning. I hope to hear more in that regard.

Friends of Freedom in the Media

Whenever a major media personality like Andrew Coyne writes an article in favour of free speech and against 319(2) of the Criminal Code, one should be grateful, and particularly when it comes from a columnist of such considerable intelligence as Andrew Coyne. Reading the front page of the National Post on July 10, I was delighted to see his article, and I agree that the ban is worse than any imaginary bite.

He makes the very profound point that it’s not just because freedom of speech is limited in other ways, such as libel and fraud and threats. Those exceptions to the general rule that freedom of speech should be absolute have clear justifications in demonstrable harm to the individual, to an identified person. Having read the front page and those being the final conclusions on the front page, I thought it would be an excellent article, but turning to page 2, I observed that he seemed to meander.

I thoroughly agree that “speech is not merely used for debating political ideas. It is innate to us as human beings, built into our very thought processes: to prevent us from speaking is the next thing to preventing us from thinking.” In my own words, there is no point in having freedom to think if you have not freedom to express your thoughts, and clearly though there are defences of truth, fair comment, honest religious opinion, and the exception of removing hatred from some other identifiable group, these high-flown concepts have very little meaning in reality when the burden of proving them falls upon an accused in a Section 319(2) charge. For instance, in regard to historical truth, no one can verify an opinion through actual proof. It’s all a matter of opinion. So the defence of a charge under Section 319(2), even if that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is never very easy.

Section 319(2) has none of what Mr. Coyne requires, being a rigorous justification of this intrusion upon the liberty of a person, because in fact the harm asserted by the alleged defamed group is both subjective and vague. There’s no need to prove it. It simply raises the question of whether the emotion might be promoted. What emotion? The emotion of hatred. What is hatred? Mr. Justice Dickson in Keegstra defined it as “intense dislike”. How can such a term be judged by any objective criterion except the horrified reaction of the politically correct, which of course in most cases includes the average person?

Hate and dislike are emotions which unfortunately are permeating most persons in society for one thing or another. There’s always something we intensely dislike, or one group, or one form of conduct, or thought, or belief, or opinion.

But generally in other sections of the Criminal Code, there must be an identifiable harm to an identifiable person. Section 319(2) requires only that the harm which is the “likely” not “actual” promotion of hatred be measured by no empirical referent whatsoever, but the subjective perception of the trier of fact, be it a judge or a jury. The actual promotion of hatred never needs to be proven under this section. How do you prove it was unlikely if no evidence of it was ever required? Unfortunately, when you introduce the element of emotion to a judicial process, judges are nothing more than human. They have the onerous task of deciding if, measured against their own emotions, intense dislike would be likely created against an identifiable group. Too often, this boils down to whether the emotion of hatred is likely promoted in them of what the accused says.

Even if hatred was promoted, why is hatred of an identifiable group a crime at all? In this regard, as Mr. Coyne quotes Jeremy Waldron in his book, “The Harm in Hatred Speech”, which he says robs target groups of the “implicit assurance that society owes to all citizens that they are accepted as members of that society.” I suggest that’s a premise for which there is no moral or philosophical justification. No group is automatically entitled to be accepted as members of society, unless and until they demonstrate by actions and argument that as a group they are worthy of recognition and acceptance in society. Acceptance in society for an individual is not automatic. We have to earn respect in our society. The natural first reaction to a stranger is not automatic acceptance, but a skeptical and measured inquiry into the performance, the character, and the associations of the individual. The same should be true of every group. No society should automatically accept any group without a careful analysis of the type and the character of the group being accepted. They could be tolerated, but acceptance is more than toleration. It is, in fact, affirmation. The full participation in society or any community needs to be earned and should never be automatic.

Finally, at the end of his article, Mr. Coyne seems to stray into the realm of popularity and numeric assessment to determine whether one should have free speech. He assures us that a handful of neo-Nazis can be tolerated because they are a handful, and if there was a capability of the few to become the many, that would justify the imposition of laws restricting the few. But has it ever been demonstrated in the past that the few could become the many without rational argument persuading people, and to which the many could respond with appropriate, reasoned arguments. Mr. Coyne sidesteps that issue.

Various groups that advocate these laws have taken this issue head on and said that because of the example of Nazi Germany, we can no longer trust society to eliminate with argument, reason, persuasion, and democracy those who promote hatred. These advocates of censorship (because that’s what they are) fail to mention or recall that in the Weimar Republic, stringent anti-hate speech laws that banned speeches by Adolf Hitler and others did not silence or defeat the National Socialist movement of which he was the spokesman.

Mr. Coyne does make the good point that dictatorships are usually the best breeding ground of hatred of minorities. It could be rationally demonstrated that the ascendency of hate groups is never possible with rational human beings, unless and until there is a factual foundation to persuade them. If such was not the presumption upon which we base the entirety of democracy, how could we trust the majority to vote for anybody? Hatred, of course, is legitimately promoted in politics against your opponent, provided you don’t mention race, religion, ethnicity, etc. We still believe that in democracy, after a full and thorough debating process, the hatred promoted by one party against the other is quite legitimate to determine who is in fact the more virtuous, and during an election by subtle means and sometimes not so subtle means, hatred is promoted. We maintain, and have for hundreds of years, the premise that in democracy and with free debate, and even the promotion of hatred against your opponent, free speech results in people making the right choice. Once the people have chosen in a democracy, it is deemed to be the right choice.

In addition, of course, there has to be consideration to the fact that in a free and democratic society, the groups which are more powerful and more prolific have the ability to defend themselves in a free and open manner, and to demonstrate that the hatred promoted against them in unjustified on the facts. We, in a free and democratic society, are supposed to believe and do believe in all other matters, with that degree of discussion, only truth could possibly promote hatred, and truth will always overcome irrational unjustified hatred. To believe otherwise is to deny the common intelligence of mankind upon which rests the belief in universal suffrage, democratic elections, and representation by population.

For this reason, truth is a defence under Section 319(2), just as it is to the accusation of defamation of an individual, and it’s in the court of public opinion, not a court of law, that these major issues should be debated. Even Nazis have a right to participate in that. After all, they’re well and truly vilified and demonized in the liberal press. I guess it’s okay to promote hatred against them, white supremacists as they are. So obviously, it depends on whose ox is gored as to whether hatred is accepted or not, and it is clear that Section 319(2) gives the legal upper hand to the majority to crush and criminalize the minority, hardly a demonstration of tolerance.

Secret Euthanasia Practiced in Canada

Hospitals in Canada are routinely causing premature death in elderly and infirm patients, probably in a desire to free up beds, or in the alternative to reduce health care costs at the end of life. This is, in fact, contrary to the Criminal Code (section 215), because there is a duty to provide necessaries of life.

Recently in the United Kingdom, a prominent doctor has revealed that approximately 170,000 people under the National Health Service have been prematurely euthanized using something called the “Liverpool Care Path,” which is the withholding of food and water, resulting in death within approximately three days. The necessaries of life include food and water.

In circumstances of which I am aware, an elderly patient who had suffered a stroke signified to his friends that he wished to receive food and water. The friends brought water and Ensure, a liquid food supplement which he eagerly accepted and drank. The hospital authorities refused to allow the friends readmission to see the patient and he was denied intravenous and his friends were told he was not allowed to have food or water. He died shortly thereafter. The friends, including a Power of Attorney, were prevented from visiting this friend during this period because a near relative was alleged to be in charge of determining what degree of medical care he would receive.

In my view at least, regardless of any relative, friend, Power of Attorney, or anyone else, the necessaries of life cannot be withheld from a person willing and able to receive them. In this case, it would appear that was the only inference that I personally could observe from the facts of which I was informed. Similar troubling circumstances are now being brought to my attention in a hospital in Ontario, where even a wife with a Power of Attorney is being denied access to her husband.

Somewhere along the line it appears that the authorities in charge of hospitals are taking steps to accomplish the premature death of people, who although in the end death may be inevitable for them, and indeed for all of us at some point, would not have happened but for the intervention of this form of care, which in my view at least is not care at all but deliberate euthanasia.

With abortion being generally recognized, and people demanding the right to have “assisted suicide,” I hope the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia does not become obscured so that hospitals and health care professionals take in upon themselves to decide who “wants to die,” and terminate their lives at a more and more rapid pace to eliminate troublesome people and perhaps those who are near death anyway. I believe in the right of natural death and the end of life being the result not of withholding of necessaries, but the natural consequence of the divine plan for the life of man, which does not involve anyone withholding food and water from another living human being who wants it.

I’m extremely troubled by the information that I’ve been provided and post this blog in the hope that it will stimulate discussion on what I think at the moment is a tacit and somewhat secret program, all too frequently reported to me at least by people who are intimately involved with their loved ones. I have no doubt that if this trend continues unimpeded, the “Liverpool Care Path” will be one upon which more and more baby boomers are going to be delivered or pushed depending on how you look at it.

27% of Albertans Support Alberta Separation!

Today's front page article in the National Post divulges the recent poll result that 27% of Albertans support Alberta separation:

Quebec separation meets ambivalence as more Canadians say they ‘don’t really care’: John Ivison | Full Comment | National Post

This amazing development is a recognition that our work as Western Separatists since 1974 has been effective. Everyday from bilingualism on West Jet to frustration with Ottawa taxation, to realization that Harper has to represent Ontario and Quebec, Albertans are waking up to the reality that they are surrendering their freedom and prosperity to a government they can't control, whose goal is to plunder them.

This reality has been the same since the beginning. The realization has not. Reform and all its false promises has been explored fully and exhausted. Time has now demonstrated Alberta and the West have no alternative but independence for survival and prosperity.

In some small way, I am proud to have contributed to this awakening! No surrender. Free the West!