In today’s society, people seem to get upset, angry, and offended at many things. The most common of these is with language, either spoken or written. We have all heard the expression “cancel culture” and the act of boycotting. These are things that people can do when they don’t like something someone has said out loud, put on a sign, or in a post to try to force the person to stop or undo what it is that they said. While this is a legitimate option to show displeasure, it goes to a whole other level when these people try going to higher authorities to have them force the person to stop saying certain things when those things are well within the law.

In Canada, we all have the “right” (see my other post about why this is in quotations) to freedom of expression. This means that as long as it’s not a call to violence, people can say pretty much anything they want to. Someone could put up a billboard saying they hate black people if they wanted to. I may not agree with the statement but I support everyone’s right to say what they want and I will do what I can to uphold it.

If we don’t allow it, then those who police our language will continue to do so until there’s nothing that anyone can say that isn’t approved by the government. As it is right now, we are already heading down that path. For example, the slogan, Black Lives Matter, was a movement in the US that spread like wildfire across North America. The people who say this and believe this, think that saying that all lives matter or white lives matter is racist. This is because they were told to believe in the racism narrative and to try to shut down opposing viewpoints. This creates even more division and hatred among the people, even though the ones trying to silence the others say they aren’t racist and believe in inclusion. This puts the lie to those words. If black lives matter isn’t racist, then neither is white lives matter. Equality matters.

If we don’t like something, we can say to the other person that we don’t and don’t want them to say those that thing anymore. This is how everyone should act because how would people feel if the roles were reversed?

All in all, there is a difference between hate speech (which doesn’t have a proper definition) and speech you hate. I’m all for free speech, not just free expression, as long as it doesn’t try to bring about any violence or criminal activity. We all need to be adults and not lash out like entitled children.

            Canada is a sovereign nation and needs to stay as such. We must rule ourselves and not allow any foreign interference from anywhere outside of our borders. This means that we should not listen to the UN, WEF, or any other NGO or government if those suggestions do not benefit the people of our country. The WEF specifically, needs to not have a voice within Canada because they do not care about Canadians at all and want to make our lives harder because it makes their lives better. Their greed and want of power and control means that we should not be taking their calls let alone attending any of their meetings.

            Already, we have seen how detrimental to society they can be with the Paris Climate Accord, Agenda 2030, etc. These and others like these need to be ignored completely because they do not benefit Canadians and create more difficult times with the higher taxes, regulations, laws, etc. that the governments impose on us.

I believe that Canada is in need of election reform and that was one of the Liberal promises a number of years ago. However, why change something that works in your favour, especially when you’re the ones in power?
​
Most people know that it is extremely difficult for things to change when it comes to elections because outside of the major cities, votes don’t really count for much. The Golden Horseshoe and a few of the other major cities in Canada make up half of the MPs in Parliament. This is wrong and everyone knows it. There must be a better balance in place so that the urban areas can’t dictate to the rest of the country. I know this would take a lot of consideration and thought to come to the best balance. Having Ontario and Quebec being able to decide everything isn’t fair.

What also needs to change is how the leaders are voted in. I believe that the people should be able to vote for who they want as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, along with local MPs. This would be similar to how the US does their voting. How this would look would be having all MP options on the ballot as it is now but also a section for who you want to vote to be in those positions, as well as a blank area for another name to be written down.

     Canadians pay a lot in taxes and we know it. We are taxed on the money we make, we get taxed on the items that we buy with the income that was already taxed, we get taxed on the property continually that we paid for with the same taxed income, we get taxed on that same house when we sell it for any difference in price, and we get taxed in so many more areas with many more taxes. This combined with the wasting of our money has lead to us having to deal with a high living cost.
 
   The government needs to stop giving our money away to those who don’t deserve it or don’t give us an equal value of something in return. No money for other countries or foreign wars, no money for bailouts, etc. They also need to reduce many of the tax rates and eliminate a lot of them entirely. I believe we need to reduce income tax, eliminate GST, eliminate the carbon tax, eliminate capital gains tax for individuals, and the list goes on. By eliminating the wasteful spending that both the Liberals and Conservatives do, there is no need to have so many and such high taxes.
 
   Why the government wants to eliminate the middle class and put them into poverty doesn’t make any sense to the average person. This is what they’re doing while at the same time telling us that they’re trying to help lift people out of poverty. They are the ones who created the problem and are now selling us the solution. We can’t stand by and allow this to happen.

    Everyone has heard of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but most likely doesn’t know everything that is in it or what it all covers/entails.  Similar to the American Amendments, it lays out the rights that people have within Canada.  However, it differs in the rights themselves and that in Canada it says that the government gives people those rights, whereas, in the US, it says that everyone has those rights regardless of what the government says or does.  Putting this into simpler terms, in the US, the government can’t say that your rights don’t exist anymore or that they’re temporarily ignored just because they say so and in Canada, it’s the opposite.  Since the government gave us these rights, they can take them away whenever they feel that it benefits them.
 
   What I believe needs to happen, sooner rather than later, is that we need to change our Charter to recognize that everyone has certain rights that the government cannot take away or limit without very good reason and then only when the courts deem it okay to do so, like in the US.  Why I compare our system with that of the US is because that’s how their rights work.  They are the only country on Earth that has the freedom of speech.  Canada has the “privilege” (rights can’t be taken away but privileges can) of expression but that is being eroded away.  By having our rights protected from the government, this will limit their potential for and actual tyranny in those areas because we will have the backing and safety net of the courts.  As it is now, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants and if there’s enough pushback or they believe there will be, they can use the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter.  What this means is that the government states that they know that they’re taking away our rights but they’re allowed to.  This clause is a loophole for our rights that the federal or provincial governments can use at any time of their choosing.  This should not be allowed.  And should the government take away our rights without using the Notwithstanding Clause, it takes months to years to have the courts force the government to back down.  By then it’s too late because the damage has been done.
 
   Once we change the Charter to not allow governments to abuse their power and force their will onto the people, we will start to feel some positive change in our country.  Some of the basic rights and freedoms (as long as the governments allow it) that most people either know or take for granted that we have in Canada are:

• the freedom of expression, religion, press, peaceful assembly, and association
• to not be deprived of life, liberty, and security of the person
• after being charged with a crime to be tried in a reasonable time
• not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
• be treated equally, regardless of age, sex, etc.

 
   One more item that should be included but isn’t is the right to one’s property.  The government should not be allowed to expropriate (fancy word for take away or steal) anyone’s property for any reason, aside from proceeds from crime.  We are hearing more and more about municipal governments taking away people’s property so that they can build something else on their property.  This is wrong in every which way.  Another great example is with firearm owners because the Liberal government has been trying to take away firearms from the law-abiding for many years now.  Whether it’s land or a moveable object, all property should be safeguarded from the government’s corrupt or greedy hands. 
 
   No political party is talking about changing the Charter to be more protective of the people but they all should be.  However, we all know that the parties are only out to serve themselves and their friends.  This needs to end!

​   The cost of living is going out of control. Prices of everything have increased greatly over the past several years, especially housing. The cost of buying a house in Canada has doubled since 2015 and the rates are still going up. How are Canadians who want to buy their first home supposed to do so unless they come from a family who has money? The average house is over $700,000, which means that the smallest down payment is $35,000. Many Canadians don’t even make that in a year, let alone being able to pay their bills and save up that $35k. Some Canadians are lucky and they live in areas where the local average house cost is less and others are not so fortunate and have to pay more.
 
What Canada needs to do is to stop all non-essential immigration and all foreign ownership. With such a high demand for housing, it creates higher costs. We need to catch up on the backlogs we already have by building more houses, apartment buildings, etc. so that those who are already in Canada can find an affordable place to live. By significantly reducing the immigration to only those who are necessary (and immediate family only- spouse and children under 18) for Canada’s economy, we can lessen the increased demand for housing. Also, by eliminating people who live in other countries from purchasing, for example, a summer home, we will further reduce the demand on housing. Both of these strategies will ensure that construction companies can catch up with demand and ease up the pressure felt by homebuyers and renters.

   At no time in history can we see when a government has disarmed its citizens that a reduction in crime takes place and that the governing body did not become tyrannical. If we go back through history, the two most glaringly evident times, of the many, when disarming the people went badly for the people are China, when an estimated 65 million people were killed and in Nazi Germany, during the Holocaust, around 6 million Jews were killed. A tyrannical government can do as they wish if the people are disarmed and can’t defend themselves. Gun control is about control. Period.

What does the Canadian Liberal Party plan on doing to want to disarm their citizens? To find the answer to this question, we can’t go to the government because we will never get the truth. Instead, we must go through history and see what happens when a government/dictator disarms the population. Most recently, Venezuela has shown the world what happens when people lose their firearms. What about the Jewish community in Nazi Germany? And the people under Mao or Stalin? We can see that tens of millions of people have been killed and many millions more severely impacted by just this one thing. A government should not have to fear its people unless they are planning on doing something that goes against the people. And telling their citizens lies about firearms to instill fear in them so that more people will go along is unconscionable. As the famous saying goes, to give up your liberty for freedom, you will have neither.

Under the Liberal government, since Trudeau came into office, gang violence is up 92% and violent crimes are up 32%. This trend is continuing upward even though he has banned thousands upon thousands of firearms through the Order in Council in May of 2020 and the handgun freeze in late 2022, which is now law. The vast majority of firearms used during the commission of crimes are illegally smuggled from the US and the Chiefs of law enforcement around the country have all stated that banning legal firearms will not change the outcome of crime rates. While Trudeau professes to want to curb violence and crime, his hypocrisy shines clearly in the fact that he has lowered the penalties for gang-related crimes. In order for crime to go down, there need to be reasons for individuals to not want to commit those crimes. Either by increasing penalties to dissuade them or something to incentivize them to do something else instead. Trudeau instead does neither and wants to take the property from law-abiding citizens. In 2018, according to StatsCan, there were a total 651 homicides and of those, 249 were by firearms and 51% of those were gang-related. This means that there were 122 homicides out of 651 where firearms were used not by a gang member. Out of nearly 2.2 million licenced individuals, you have a 0.0056% chance of being killed by someone with a firearm and the Liberal government wants everyone to believe that that is significant. However, in the same 2018 year in Canada, there were 1,922 fatalities due to car crashes, nearly 300 drownings, 119 people were beaten to death, 250 nutritional deficiency deaths, 54,182 people died from heart disease, 168 from medical & surgical care, ~15,000 from alcohol use, and ~48,000 from smoking.

Using our neighbour to the south, we can clearly see that restricting firearms does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Look at California, New York, and the city of Chicago. Those are the places with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country and yet crimes with firearms are extremely high. Over 90% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Criminals know that they can get away with whatever it is they want because they know no one will be armed and shoot back in defence. Over in Great Britain, we can see the same thing. They banned firearms and even knives but their crime rates are still not falling as was claimed would happen and are actually increasing. What we see around the world is that the governments, including our own, do not want their citizens armed. The Liberal party had a long-gun registry a few years ago and its cost was too high for the next to zero return they got from it. It showed how useless it was in preventing or catching criminals who used firearms because next to none of the firearms that were used in crimes were legally owned by the offenders. The firearms were either bought off the black market (registry wouldn’t help with that), stolen (registry wouldn’t help with that), or smuggled into the country (registry wouldn’t help with that). Now, the Liberals are using the Order in Council and C-21 to bring back a registry without calling it one. This is yet another one of their attempts to control the population. That, along with the banning of certain firearms because of the perceived danger that they pose.

Here in Canada, we are taking away peoples’ right to enjoy their property in the name of safety. Canada does not have a gun problem, we have a people problem and the Liberals continue to make it easier for them to commit crimes and at the same time vilify law-abiding citizens for enjoying something we have done for over a hundred years. Why would our government want to disarm its citizens closely after taking away most of our rights and freedoms in the name of safety during COVID? What are they planning for our future?

A government should want to have its populace trained and armed in case something goes off the rails, like in the Ukraine. We (the West) are giving Ukraine citizens AR-15s to help defend themselves against Russia and yet at the same time taking them away from us. If conservation officers need ARs to protect them from Canadian wildlife, then why can’t Canadians have and use them for the same reason?

In all of our history, only ONE person has died as a result of being shot from an AR-15. The ban on them as well as the ban on others and the bans yet to come serve no purpose to public safety. None. In fact, the government should be telling people to get their licence, to not be afraid of a tool. More vehicles kill people than firearms; more people are beaten to death than are killed with firearms; more people die from medical errors than are killed with firearms; alcohol kills more people than firearms. Many things result in the deaths of people in higher numbers than firearms. If it truly were about saving lives, then firearms wouldn’t even be in the top 10 things to ban. Again, it’s about control. They are fear mongers who play on your emotions to get you to side with them as well as targeting those who know little to nothing about firearms or the related laws to side with them.

Assault-style or military-style are made-up terms that are meant to make you think that they are assault or military weapons when they are not. Something-style is not the thing that is mentioned. They only use the term “assault-style” to make it sound scarier. Also, ehe magazine capacity restrictions in Canada make no sense- 5 rounds for a rifle, 10 for a handgun, and no restriction for a shotgun or .22 rimfire. Guess what the manufacturer standard capacity magazines are for the most common rifles? 30 rounds. That’s the actual standard that they come in. We have to modify them to meet Canadian standards. When competing in speed competitions with rifles on the international stage, Canadians are at a significant disadvantage since we can only train with 5 rounds before having to reload. When we go somewhere else to compete, they’re used to using the standard 30 rounds. Our laws are so mixed up and make no sense. We arbitrarily limit magazine capacity so that criminals have to take more time reloading, thus slowing them down. Criminals are already breaking the law, so they don’t care about undoing the modifications that limit the number of rounds in a magazine. Not to mention that it only takes a second or two to reload a firearm. As for real assault weapons, which are fully automatic, they have been banned for 50 years and use up their magazine in only a moment before needing to reload and are not as easy to keep aimed due to the kickback.

Finally, if law-abiding firearms owners were the problem, then we wouldn’t need the government and their paid media telling us that we are.

I believe that it should be everyone’s right to own firearms as long as they can pass a criminal background check and pass a safety course, which we do already. Furthermore, I am of the mind to allow citizens to carry firearms as they do in many States of the U.S. as long as they pass a safety course for that and go through regular range practice and testing to prove that these people can carry and use their firearms safely and competently. There should be no magazine restrictions because they do not do anything except create more complications. Finally, there should be three classes of firearms, as there is now. Prohibited firearms would be any automatics, restricted would be any handguns, and all rifles and shotguns would be non-restricted, including the AR-15.