fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: Trudeau’s gun confiscation isn’t just terrible policy. It’s explicitly racist.

Trudeau’s gun confiscation is theft, and tyranny. But we have the ability to refuse to comply.

mm

Published

on

There was little surprise Friday morning when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government would be banning and confiscating hundreds of thousands of firearms that he and his ministers think are scary. But the incredibly wide net cast in the mass confiscation, that this was done by cabinet decree, and the racial exemption for First Nations took many by surprise.

It has been expected for some time that the Trudeau government would attempt to ban several long-guns that they have repeatedly misclassified as “assault-rifles”, “assault-style”, and “military-style”. Trudeau Jr. is seemingly unaware that the civilian possession of assault rifles has been illegal since Trudeau Sr. banned them in the early 1970s.

Knowledge of the law his own father passed aside, Trudeau has also been unable to define – even after announcing the ban – what exactly a “military-style” or “assault-style” rifle is. In short, they are rifles that look scarier than your granddaddy’s wood-stock deer rifle. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, the firearms being banned have the same functionality as most of the non-banned firearms, but have cosmetic differences that simply make them appear more militaristic.

There is little difference in the functionality of my own 270 Remington hunting rifle (which is not banned, I think), and a Ruger Mini-14, which is now banned. The only difference is that my 270 Remington doesn’t come with as many modification-kits to make it look scarier to Liberal eyes.

Equivalently, if “racing-style cars” were illegal, the Liberals would now ban vehicles with Honda Civic engines inside of Formula-1 bodies.

In all, Ottawa has now banned 1,500 different firearms and made criminals out of approximately 500,000 Canadians who until they woke up this morning, were law-abiding citizens. With the stroke of a pen, every one of these citizens who has passed an extensive training course and background check, will be a criminal if they do not hand over their recently-lawful property.

This all happened behind closed doors. No legislation to be debated in Parliament. No bill for the public to see before coming into law. Just a decree ordered by the cabinet at the direction of the prime minister.

As of this morning, it is illegal for these gun owners to use or even transport their property except to send them back to the manufacturer, or to surrender them to the police.

Details are to come at some point as to how the “buy-back” program will work. Gun owners might rightfully ask how a government can “buy-back” something that was never its property to begin with. They may reasonably ask to see the bill of sale with their own signature on the paper before “selling back” to the government.

Gun owners who refuse to actively surrender their property will have armed police showing up at their doors. Gun owners may reasonably ask the armed squad at their home if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms authorized warrants for police to raid homes to steal lawfully acquired property.

Many gun owners may reasonably conclude that a government that arbitrarily decrees laws to steal their lawfully acquired property is the embodiment of tyranny, and decide to bury or hide their guns from the armed squads coming to take them.

When all is said and done, the Liberals may have succeeded only in driving a large portion of Canada’s lawful firearms community underground.

And underground firearms – including those intended for ill purpose – will thrive.

Trudeau’s announcement emphasized that only bad people would want to own these firearms.

“These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada.”

There you have it. These rifles aren’t for hunting. They are for mass shootings. Unless you belong to a First Nation.

In that case, the right to hunt with these rifles – that Trudeau says nobody uses for hunting – will be protected.

It’s no secret that the Akwesasne Mohawk reserve in Ontario is the smuggling capital of Canada. I bear them no ill-will for taking advantage of Canada’s overweening tobacco taxes to smuggle huge quantities of contraband cigarettes through their territory from the United States.

But through this reserve is also smuggled large quantities of drugs and illegal firearms. Smuggled, illegal firearms like those used by the mass-murderer in Nova Scotia a week ago.

By banning everyone in Canada except for First Nations to possess these guns, Ottawa will be handing over an effective monopoly to those smugglers hiding in these communities to run guns, creating more crime and danger in an already economically disadvantaged community.

This raises another serious issue. By banning 1,500 different makes and classes of firearms from all Canadians except for First Nations, Canada will become the only country on Earth to issue different firearms licenses on an explicitly racial basis. It is a stain on Canada’s national honour.

Luckily, there are ways beyond civil disobedience to resist Ottawa’s gun grab.

While Ottawa may criminalize a large number of gun owners, the enforcement of criminal law falls to the provinces. British Columbia refused to arrest and prosecute people for small possessions of cannabis for nearly a decade before it was legalized at the federal level.

Similarly, the provinces have the right to appoint their own Chief Firearms Officers, and instruct prosecutors not to lay charges against anyone refusing to comply with the confiscation.

In short, if this law is enforced in any province, the premier of that province is just as guilty as the prime minister himself.

A positive sign on this front was Alberta Premier Jason Kenney who said, “In response to today’s announcement from Ottawa, our government is actively consider appointing Alberta’s own chief firearms officer (CFO) to replace the CFO appointed by Ottawa.”

It’s something that Alberta has been actively considering since it was added to the mandate of the Fair Deal Panel for study last fall.

This will be even more important going forward, as Trudeau promised that more moves to confiscate and ban guns would be coming from Ottawa soon.

The Liberals know well that this ban and confiscation won’t save a single life. The Nova Scotia shooter had no firearms license, and therefore no legally acquired firearms. The ban decreed from Ottawa would not have stopped a single one of the firearms that he obtained from falling into his hands.

But this isn’t about safety. Liberals just seem to have an instinctive discomfort with firearms. Most Liberals do no own, operate, or know very much about firearms. They more often than not, view firearms owners as gun-totting hicks planning to shoot an innocent kid for wandering onto their lawn.

Because most Liberals do not own firearms, most Liberals know very little about them. They can be easily mislead about what the various terms even mean.

In short, this move is designed to please Liberal voters and win over other leftists who voted NDP, Bloc or Green last time around, while forcing the Conservatives to defend the unpopular position of supporting “assault weapons”, and “military-style rifles”.

It’s just good politics. But also pure theft.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher & CEO of the Western Standard
dfildebrandt@westernstandardonline.com
Twitter: @dfildebrandt

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard and President of Wildrose Media Corp. dfildebrandt@westernstandardonline.com

Opinion

CAMERON: Canada has embraced medical authoritarianism

“We are a long way from a free and democratic society right now. There is nothing “democratic” about public health officials’ orders. Canadians are living in a state of medical authoritarianism where the rule of law is in tatters, and constitutionalism and democracy with it.”

mm

Published

on

As Canada faces winter 2020 and the citizens of this country are threatened by politicians with a new wave of lockdowns, it is time to take stock and consider. 

There has never been a similar six-month period in the history of Canada like the period from April to September 2020.  The massive collateral damage from the lockdowns is akin to the national self-amputation of a limb.  The self-inflicted damage has been followed by an infuriating political nonchalance at all the blood.

With each passing day, it feels more and more like a stern reminder is needed for the ruling elite: that this figurative blood flows from real people. And it is still flowing.   

Over a million jobs have been destroyed, and with them the independence and hopes and plans of millions. The despair of families thus affected is stark and palpable.  I’ve met with scores of them recently, and they stare bleakly at their prospects for the future.  

The response from the political elite? More pontification about the benefits of the lockdowns. While Doug Ford bloviates and threatens, and Justin Trudeau administers the next dose of the globalist agenda, ratings agencies like Fitch and Moody’s quietly consider the ominous implications of Canada’s ongoing hari-kari.  

Against this grim backdrop stands another ugly truth: without a shot being fired, Canada, once renowned for its liberty and constitutionalism, has submitted to medical authoritarianism. 

In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 apportions law-making power to either Parliament or the provincial legislatures. The Constitution requires that people have representatives who consider, debate and make laws on their behalf.

There is nothing democratic about the oppressive rule of public health officials. 

The doctors have been in charge for over six months.  In that time, it has become obvious that they are unfit to make decisions on civil governance. They know nothing about tourism. They know nothing about commerce. They know nothing about transportation or agriculture or industry. They know nothing about the Constitution or its importance to Canada’s liberal democracy. They appear to also know nothing, or at least be willfully ignorant about the social consequences of their policy decisions, like domestic violence, suicide, a failing economy and growing civil unrest. 

It turns out that public health officials do know something about authoritarianism, however. 

Public health officials made the orders that forbade walking or exercising alone in the park, or sitting alone on park benches.  A public health order prohibited the gathering of citizens in Alberta to protest the economy-destroying lockdowns, where peaceful protesters were arrested and issued $1200 tickets. It was a public health order that authorized the $900 ticket to a lone teenager in Ottawa with ADHD playing basketball by himself.   

From east to west, contradictory and confusing orders have been issued by health officials regarding everything from churches to golf courses. And, of course on masks. 

On masks, we’ve heard it all. You don’t have to wear them, they don’t do any good. No, they are like a super power – you are safe if you wear them. You must wear them if you can’t socially distance. No, you have to wear them and socially distance. You have to wear them in church, but not in the restaurants. You can go to the gym and not wear them.  You must wear them during sex.  

The inanity of it requires that doctors be deposed and the legislatures resume governance.  

A frightening progression in this medical authoritarianism was seen two weeks ago., when Dr. Jacques Girard, leader of the Quebec City public health authority, held a press conference to brag that he had ordered the arrest of two citizens and had them incarcerated at a secret location. Dr. Girard announced that the police participation was “exceptional”.  

Citizens ought to take notice of the total lack of due process in Dr. Girard’s actions. No lawyers made submissions on behalf of the “accused” persons, no impartial judge considered the constitutional issues. There was no bail hearing. The Crown was not required to “show cause” as to why the liberty interests of two Canadians should be overridden. Dr. Girard alone decided two people were “guilty”, and he decided what their “sentence” would be. 

How long can people be confined in these new secret isolation centers? No one but the health officials know.   

That’s scary. It ought to be much scarier than COVID-19, which from recent statistics from the Canadian government has a death rate thus far of .009 percent of Canadians below the age of 60.  

In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that laws which infringe constitutional rights can only be justified in accordance with the law (meaning laws which are duly enacted by democratically-elected members of Parliament or the legislatures) and within the parameters of a free and democratic society. 

We are a long way from a free and democratic society right now. There is nothing “democratic” about public health officials’ orders. Canadians are living in a state of medical authoritarianism where the rule of law is in tatters, and constitutionalism and democracy with it. 

Jay Cameron is a guest columnist and the Litigation Manager at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. 

Continue Reading

Opinion

TERRAZZANO: It’s time for Kenney to act on citizens initiative referendums

“Citizens’ initiative is a powerful tool to give voters more influence over the laws that govern all Albertans. Kenney promised citizens’ initiative about a year ago and his government must fulfill that promise during this fall’s legislative session.”

mm

Published

on

Last November, Premier Jason Kenney promised Albertans to introduce a citizen-led referendum law, or citizens’ initiative, to “give Albertans the power to hold this and future governments to account if we do not keep our commitment to stand up for Alberta.” It’s time for Kenney’s United Conservatives to make good on their promise and pass citizens’ initiative during the upcoming fall legislative session. 

Citizens’ initiative is based on a simple, but very important principle: if legislation belongs to the people, then the people should have a direct ability to introduce laws, hold politicians accountable and repeal bad legislation. 

Citizens’ initiative has been successful in British Columbia where it allowed voters to defeat the HST after the government bungled the transition process. While not through the formal citizens’ initiative process, the power of referendums was on full display in Calgary when taxpayers voted against the Olympic bid boondoggle and in B.C. where voters shut down the proposed TransLink tax. 

After Alberta’s New Democrats imposed their carbon tax without mentioning it in their 2015 election platform, citizens’ initiative would have given Albertans the opportunity to repeal the tax.

Citizens’ initiative would also help advance Alberta’s agenda in Ottawa. On constitutional issues such as equalizationOttawa has a legal duty to negotiate with the province if a referendum results in a clear majority on a clear question. Is there any doubt that Albertans would have had that referendum by now if we had citizens’ initiative? Importantly, Alberta’s legislation must allow citizens to initiate referendums on constitutional issues. A restriction against citizen-led constitutional referendums would mean that critical issues to Albertans such as equalization and internal free trade would be off the table unless the government of the day allows it.

Citizens’ initiative in Alberta also brings us one step closer to citizen-led referendums at the federal level. Albertans need a federal party willing to include citizens’ initiative in their policy mix, and the more provinces that have citizens’ initiative on their own, the more likely we are to have a federal party adopt the policy. If, for example, Albertans pushed for a referendum to abolish the No More Pipelines Act, that would at least put the issue on the national stage more than a simple opinion poll. In fact, that may be one of the best ways to bring our energy issues into the national spotlight.

A common concern with citizens’ initiative is that it may lead to a never ending cycle of referendums. Fortunately, there’s many different referendum laws we can follow to make sure Alberta’s model doesn’t lead to political chaos while still giving citizens a fair shot at passing our laws. 

When the UCP first promised to introduce citizens’ initiative, it said that it would follow B.C.’s example where citizens must collect petition signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in 90 days to force a referendum. That doesn’t sound so bad at first glance, but it meant collecting more than 320,000 signatures in B.C.’s last initiative attempt, which translates to more than 3,500 signatures per day. These onerous rules explain why only one referendum attempt has collected enough signatures to trigger a referendum in B.C. since citizens’ initiative came into effect in 1995. 

Contrast B.C.’s rules with the rules in California, which has a population similar to the size of Canada, but requires less than double the amount of signatures to trigger a referendum than B.C. does. If Kenney wants citizens’ initiative to be more than just window dressing, he’ll need to make sure the rules are less onerous than B.C.’s.

In the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s presentation to the province’s Democratic Accountability Committee, we advocated the Alberta government take a more middle-ground approach and follow the rules in Idaho, which require signatures for six per cent of voters to trigger a referendum. The citizens of Idaho also have 18 months to collect the required signatures. Based on the number of registered voters from the last provincial election, Albertans would need to collect about 157,000 signatures to trigger a referendum, or less than 300 signatures per day. 

Kenney should also implement a signature threshold for each electoral district to ensure interests in big cities and rural areas are both considered. 

Citizens’ initiative is a powerful tool to give voters more influence over the laws that govern all Albertans. Kenney promised citizens’ initiative about a year ago and his government must fulfill that promise during this fall’s legislative session. 

Franco Terrazzano is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. This column is an abbreviated version of the presentation he made for the Alberta government’s Democratic Accountability Committee.

Continue Reading

Opinion

WAGNER: W. P. Kinsella – Alberta’s famous “redneck” writer

Michael Wagner profiles the Alberta man that wrote the book behind ‘Field of Dreams”, scorned by Canada’s literary establishment.

mm

Published

on

One of Canada’s most famous fiction writers was Alberta born and bred W. P. (William Patrick) Kinsella. He’s probably best known for the fact that his book Shoeless Joe was made into the 1989 movie Field of Dreams that starred Kevin Costner and received nominations for three Academy Awards. Because of Shoeless Joe, Kinsella also won a couple of major book awards.

Kinsella’s stories tend to focus on either baseball (such as Shoeless Joe) or the lives of First Nations people. His book The Fencepost Chronicles, with fictional stories about the lives of “Indians” from Hobbema (now known as Maskwacis), won the Stephen Leacock Award for Humour in 1987. Kinsella was criticized for his portrayal of First Nations people and for the offence of “cultural appropriation.” Nevertheless, he rejected such criticism, and considered the fact that his books sold well as vindication of his writing.

Interestingly, Kinsella was politically conservative and this set him apart from Canada’s literary elite. His political views are described by University of Calgary Canadian Studies professor George Melnyk in Volume Two of The Literary History of Alberta which was published in 1999. 

Literary figures in Canada tend to be leftists, with Margaret Atwood being a prominent example. Partly because of his political views, Kinsella was disconnected from Canada’s literary establishment. As Melnyk put it, “His pro-Americanism, his rejection of political correctness on such issues as appropriation of voice, and his championing of right-wing causes such as the Reform Party have isolated him from many members of the Albertan and Canadian writing community.”

Kinsella was not at all bothered by such isolation. For as Melnyk explains, “This lone-wolf image is rooted in his solitary childhood (he has acknowledged that ‘childhood is the most influential part of a writer’s life’) and an American-influenced individualism in which writing is simply a means to an economic end.”

Melnyk points out that Kinsella’s writing has been well-received by the reading public – it’s only Canada’s literary elite that found him wanting…”As a novelist, Kinsella has successfully blended both American and Canadian contexts; but the price of this popular success has been a certain ostracism by the Canadian literary establishment, where neither Kinsella’s personality, his political and literary pronouncements, nor his writing have found much favour. Despite the controversy, his writing remains popular with the general public.”

According to Melnyk, there are three distinct elements influencing Kinsella’s fiction. The first is an affinity for the loner and the outsider. “The second feature is his right-wing, pro-American sympathies which are reflective of popular sentiments in Alberta, but which are anathema to the Canadian academics with whom he has waged an ongoing battle for more than a decade. Kinsella certainly has not been averse to identifying with the image and values of a traditional Alberta redneck.”

The third element is his view of the value of commercial success: “In private-industry-oriented Alberta, he shares the popular conviction that the marketplace is the great judge of real value and success.” This view contrasts with the idea that success is determined by the favourable judgment of the academic community. Kinsella’s emphasis on the market as the standard for success reflects a much more populist view than that of many scholars in the Canadian literary establishment.

It’s likely that most successful fiction writers in Canada are left-wing, so Kinsella is very much an exception to that pattern. But if there’s going to be an exception to the leftist conformism of Canada’s literary elite, it’s only fitting that he should be an Albertan. One could even say that he was a bit of a maverick. 

Michael Wagner is columnist for the Western Standard. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta. His books include ‘Alberta: Separatism Then and Now’ and ‘True Right: Genuine Conservative Leaders of Western Canada.’

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.