Skip to main content

Heritage Minister & Iqra Khalid plan next step in outlawing free speech

It was nothing more than a statement from the government condemning racism, said the ruling Liberals. 'Conservative' columnists Andrew Coyne and Kelly McParland told us it was nothing to think twice about (if those guys are conservatives then we're living in Bizarro World) and any criticism of it meant you were a fascist (yes, this guys are middle aged SJWs).
Of course, as all of those opposed to Motion 103 (M103) knew, it never stops with a motion. The motion becomes a bill, the bill becomes law, the law gets precedence, and then throw out the Constitution because we live in  police state.
Guys like Coyne and McParland like police states, because they feel as part of the media establishment they'll always be protected by government (as long as they tow the line, which they are only too happy to do, in return for their government subsidized paycheque). And Heritage Minister Melanie Joly and MP Iqra Khalid (the author of the motion) like a police state, because they are the government and figure as long as they're in control they should have the right to dictate what rights the people should (and is more the case) shouldn't have.
So no sooner is M103 is passed than Joly calls the reaction to it, "unacceptable." She's shocked that in a (supposedly) free country, with (supposedly) free speech, people can up and express their displeasure with government (yes, a lot of it was vulgar, but when did she elect herself chief of the morality police?).
The left-wing National Post (not to be confused with the radically left-wing Toronto Star) quoted spokesperson Safwan Choudhry from the international Islamic organization Ahmadiyya (with out any reference to who exactly they were) as saying, why do people [in Canada] think it's okay to launch attacks (online comments) at elected officials. Got that? The establishment media are quoting a foreign funded international Muslim organization on why it's not okay to question or criticize our elected officials.
Joly said that in the short term she is just ignoring and blocking those making vulgar criticisms (or any criticism we suspect) which is her right, and the right of all Canadians. Don't like it what's being said, don't want to engage, then put down the newspaper, turn off the radio, TV or computer.
Of course doing the sensible thing is never the strong suit for any government official.
Her next task, the one those of not employed by government subsidized legacy media saw coming, is to censor social media for inappropriate comments, which as always, begs the question, inappropriate to whom. Well, don't worry, the government will sort all that out, a
nd of course they always get it right, they're the government. Then we'll have Messrs Coyne and McParland to tell us, 'oh this is nothing to get excited about, go about your business, nothing to see here citizens.'









Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fake News Sites

There has of late been great media consternation about the proliferation of fake news sites that mislead voters and generally misinform. There is a growing movement within the MSM, college campuses and even at the White House to have these types of news sites banned. Well, as a free speech absolutist I'm not in favour of restricting anyone's right to publish misleading and even downright false information (as long as it's not slandering an individual). However, as a public service, since there is so much concern over 'news' sites like these, I've compiled a list of some of the most egregious fake news sites online. They range from sites that bend stories to fit a certain narrative to others who create elaborate fake stories, or feature opinion writers writing columns that many of today's university students would consider hate speech (such as the Guardian's Julie Bindel advocating putting all men in concentration camps). At any rate consider yourself f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Canada's 'Merry Xmas '

Post a Comment
Read more

Elected representative or unelected spooks? Left prefers the latter.

WARSHINGTON The Deep State Targets Trump by Patrick J. Buchanan   February 17, 2017   Multiple Pages photo credit: Bigstock When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, “If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls “The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn.” And what were Flynn’s offenses? In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations. “That’s neither illegal nor improper,” writes Lake. Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that ther...
Post a Comment
Read more