These are our fundamental freedoms as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which this website is based on.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.
The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon Continues Tue, June 11, 2019 | Author: Peter Vogel | Volume 26 Issue 23 How did Dr. Jordan Peterson become a household name? Very simply, he spoke out about the truth, against a lie — and then he dug in his heels and said he would be willing to go to jail rather than say things he did not believe! He showed some good old-fashioned Canadian courage, and is now one of the most famous Canadians in the world. But the success of his stand cannot simply be measured in the crowds that he draws — many people with ridiculous ideas can draw a crowd — but it can be seen in the uptake of his example. Originally, Dr. Peterson was talking about reverse-censorship, forced speech, but freedom of speech itself is taking a beating in Parliament these days and censorship is reaching new heights. Let’s look at three recent examples: Our Government discussing a list of “reliable” news outlets. Some journalists are rightly alarmed by the prospect of approved news sources plus the threat of “meaningful financial consequences” for those who spread “fake news”. The rest are either naive or willing to seek approval, no matter what stories they will have to hide or whitewash. Will “safe news” be the new catchphrase? Does it not have significant potential to become the new fake news? Next time you see a major publication publish a scathing criticism of the government, be particularly thankful for the journalist and the publisher; it will take more guts to criticize in the future if this trend continues. One MP speaking out in a committee (on online hate speech) and reading a name and writings from a killer; words that were later expunged. MP Michael Cooper actually used the written words of the Christchurch, NZ, mosque shooter to prove to a witness that Brenton Tarrant was not a right-wing extremist, but actually admired China’s system. The committee took exception to his approach, which is not uncommon — disagreements can and should occur — but future generations will not be able to learn from this because the committee later voted to erase his comments from the record. They erased history! Three free speech advocates were not even given a respectful welcome before a panel of the Justice Committee; this example connects to the last one in that the vote to erase MP Cooper’s comments had just happened before they testified. John Robson gave a particularly compelling and coherent defence of freedom of speech, Mark Steyn spoke out against a return to hate speech tribunals, and Lindsay Shepherd made an important point that we don’t have a responsibility to condemn everyone who we believe did something evil; silence does not equate approval. Collectively, they did their best to preserve freedom of speech for the next generation. History should not look kindly on those who try to erase spoken words from the record. This is now the situation for the Justice Committee — they erased MP Cooper’s comments with their Liberal majority (the Conservatives abstained from voting). Interestingly, while a few colleagues support MP Cooper, Andrew Scheer sent a strong message to his whole party about the consequences of speaking out when he removed Cooper from the Committee. Don’t back down MP Michael Cooper, your stand for freedom of speech in action is worth more than a committee seat! To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, “There are going to be consequences for speaking, yes, but there are also consequences for not speaking! Not paying a price is not an option.” So take a courageous stand. You can do that in many ways, but don’t overlook politics. Between elections, speaking truth to power means confronting politicians — but during elections, it means talking to the voters! You could do that as a candidate for the CHP. If you are not a member yet, please join. If you are not involved yet, please get involved. If you want to be a candidate, please contact the CHP so that unpopular truth will be spoken. And finally, please consider watching this recent video of Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Canada — the “Friend with a pickup-truck” Fri, June 07, 2019 | Author: Peter Vogel | Looking back at the events which commemorated D-Day yesterday, but especially back to D-Day itself, we see that Canada was—and is— the kind of friend that everyone needs. The kind of friend who comes with his pickup-truck to help you out when you need it most. How many people are there who don’t have a good friend like that, someone whom they can rely on? Plenty, I’m sure. How many friends do we have that mean well and try hard, but are not able to really help in a time of need? Nations can be like that, too. Some nations are friendly toward Canada, but would be of little assistance should Canada ever need help, especially of the military kind. But in the first half of the last century, Canada was the kind of friend that everyone needs from time to time. Strong, capable, energetic, and not lacking in resources. If you have a friend like this in your life, be thankful. Not everyone does. Canada’s list of needy friends was long: Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, and yes, Italy too (though they got into the war on the wrong side). Canada came in with more than just a “pickup-truck” we came with trained troops for all arenas of battle — air, sea, and land (in two World Wars). While the death toll of Canadian troops who landed in France was 359 on June 6th 1944, over 2,000 died in the following days during the Battle of Normandy. As tragic as this was for each of the families who lost loved ones, the military operation was a success as the Nazis were slowly beaten back from their fortified positions. Let us never forget the high price that was paid for freedom. Canada was then a country and friend that gave much without asking much in return. I myself am in the debt of the Canadian soldiers who liberated my ancestors in Holland. I have been able, over the years, to personally thank a few veterans who fought there. But there are few left, and they are elderly. They did their part for my freedom and yours, and now the question comes to each of us — especially those of us who did not have to fight to enjoy the benefits of freedom: what are we doing to preserve freedom for ourselves — and for others? Would we be willing to sacrifice what we have to restore freedom for others? Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, rightly said that her generation, the wartime generation, was resilient. At age 93 she stood outside to make her short speech, and delivered it as clearly as someone half her age. But will those of us who are closer to 39 than 93 be as resilient as that generation? Will we “take up the quarrel with the foe” as Canadians did in both World Wars? Our struggle to preserve essential freedoms is also real, though it is thankfully not as bloody. The complacency of many in the post-war years has left Canada with an eroding foundation where rights are talked about, but freedom not so much, and responsibility least of all. “Duty to country” was the hallmark of the wartime generation. This must be remembered and taken to heart by the generations that are growing up or growing old in relative peace and security. Canada is still a beacon of hope, a destination for many from all over the world. But Canada is more than a great piece of real estate to come and live on — it is a country with a history of valour, a spirit of bravery, and a tradition of helping those in need. Canada must not forget its heroic history. Remember this history, teach it — and its lessons — to the next generation, so that they might become as dutiful and resilient in its defence of freedom as those who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Please consider joining CHP as we seek to honour Canada’s heritage that was based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic. It was the strength of faith for many that allowed them to stare death in the face on the battlefield and not give up. Prayers were offered here in Canada for their lives and for the victory. It is significant that the graves of many who paid the highest price on those battlefields far away are marked by crosses. May God bless our efforts to stand up in the political realm for the freedom that cost so many so much.
Defending the National Conscience Tue, June 04, 2019 | Author: Rod Taylor | Volume 26 Issue 22
Thank God for giving each of us a conscience! Without a conscience, there would be no inner prompting, either to do good or to refrain from doing evil. Because God has written the law in our hearts (“written it to our hard drive,” to paraphrase), we can know how to avoid the things that displease our Maker, the Creator of heaven and earth. For greater clarity, He has also given us His written word, the Bible, a clear revelation of His will for mankind. No human being has to be ignorant of God’s will in the big issues and most of secular society—even those who deny God’s existence—have agreed that the basic precepts laid out in his word are worth following.
“Don’t commit murder. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t commit adultery.” These are basic moral principles that only the most rebellious of our fellow citizens dare to challenge at face value. However, the hardcore Left—including the PM and his Liberal caucus, the Greens, the NDP, the Red Tories, the sold-out leftist media and the compromised education establishment—have redefined the issues of life to such an extent that they allow the killing of innocent life and call it “choice” for abortion and “death with dignity” for euthanasia.
With the national conscience at such a low ebb, it is refreshing to have principled politicians—like MP David Anderson—remind Canadians of the importance of allowing our fellow citizens to obey the dictates of their individual consciences in matters of life and death. On October 30, 2018, the Hon. David Anderson tabled Bill C-418, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Medical Assistance in Dying). On May 29, 2019, the bill had its first hour of debate.
Mr. Anderson began by laying out the need for his bill: “For a great many Canadian doctors, the core of their conscience prohibits their participation in taking a life.” MP Rachael Harder of Lethbridge also helped in the first hour of debate by defending and promoting the concept of conscience protection: “We should be able to engage in the career of our choice and have our ethical and moral values respected. We should be able to function according to our conscience.”
It is simply a fact that if we allow the state to impose its values upon citizens to the extent that they may no longer refrain from acts that they consider evil, our society will have embarked on a course of state-sponsored evil. When conscience is at work in an individual and that individual resists the tide of evil and challenges the assumptions of a society gone astray, that individual may play a critical role in restoring society’s damaged moral compass. If instead, that individual is hampered in his or her efforts to bring a moral perspective to a complex ethical problem, society is deprived of that wisdom, hardened in its commitment to immoral practices and subject to a misguided approach in its laws and practices.
The Liberals and their philosophically-aligned leftist allies in the House had no good sound arguments to put forth in the debate but offered illogical pablum like this mishmash from NDP member Murray Rankin: “We believe that coercion and intimidation are always wrong,” he said, before contradicting himself by opining that patients have a “constitutional right to avail themselves (sic) of medical assistance in dying.”
Of course, there is no constitutional right to “avail oneself of medical aid in dying,” but the Supreme Court justices invented an excuse, created a loophole, and Parliament did not have the courage (back in 2015) to use the Notwithstanding Clause to tell the judges that they were wrong. Now we have a law on “medical assistance in dying” and doctors are expected to participate — unless MP Anderson’s bill passes — to provide “medical assistance in killing.”
By requiring a doctor to perform or refer for assisted suicide, Mr. Rankin insists that we must use coercion and intimidation on doctors to get them to violate their consciences, something he says is “always wrong.” I’d like to ask Mr. Rankin, “How can it be right to do something that is ‘always wrong’?”
The debate will go on. If the collective conscience in the House of Commons were not already seared, this bill would pass in a heartbeat. If the current MPs were all men and women of conscience, this bill would not even have been necessary. However, since self-serving political pragmatism and crass partisan behaviour seem so prevalent, every MP will need to hear from his or her constituents about MP David Anderson’s important bill C-418 if there is any chance of getting them to honestly evaluate this bill. Please sign the online petition if you have not already done so. Please circulate it to your friends and please contact your MP, urging him or her to obey the promptings of conscience and support this bill. Without a conscience, our nation will slide further into a brutal anarchy.
For representation in Parliament that will protect life from conception to natural death, join CHP Canada. To bring about a CHP government, volunteer and support CHP Canada until we are represented in our Canadian Parliament.