I want to answer Karen’s rhetorical question from, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q25rP9t0ZI. Karen expresses frustration, rightly, at the notion that the lawful protections are breaking down in the relentless pursuit of politically correct, regressive judicial reform which are being demanded in light of the Ghomeshi trial. She asks if people don’t realize that the presumption of innocence is of paramount importance in modern civil society, and laments, rightly again, the statist hell that would be the result of implementing the demands for what is to come shortly.
My terse and brief answer, at least as far as Canada is concerned is in two words, “Firearms Act.” Karen, read it. Think about it. You’re far too intelligent to let this one slide, I know, it’s not your “beat” so to speak. But I truly believe that reading it will answer your questions.
My somewhat longer answer is, it’s already too late. We the people have lost interest in the English common law protections, and this is seldom more evident, at least in Canada, than when we read the Firearms Act, and the related provisions of the Criminal Code. The Firearms Act more or less passed in 1995-1996. Consider Alan Rock’s handling of the Ottawa University men’s hockey debacle, extrapolate that to the Firearms Act, and you have all you really need to know about how this Ghomeshi nonsense is going to play out. I, for one, can’t help but note just who is holding the reigns of power at present.
Sorry, I really wish it was better news.
Anyway, my point is, the people of Canada have already voted against freedom, time, and time again. This October, we the people did so. Again. The precedent for all that will follow was originally set in 1992, with the Kim Campbell iteration of the Firearms Act, and significantly compounded in the Alan Rock/Jean Chrétien iteration of the Firearms Act. Really, we’d have to go back to the living tree doctrine to do a comprehensive history about how future injustices will unfold, but now… Now, I fear it’s too late. We’re not interested, as a country, and the assessment must be necessarily grim; we deserve a fate comparable to Russia under Stalin. We were given a gift of democracy, and we did not care for it.
All of this has had devastating impact on men’s rights, but it also goes hand-in-hand with it. The enemies of freedom cannot destroy the country if they do not first destroy men, and all the good that men can do. I’m not normally one for conspiracies, but I have to wonder if in some Machiavellian masterstroke the crown was ordered to go forward in order to bring about the precise reaction that you are now lamenting. The situation of men the world over, to draw a literary allusion is now that of Boxer from Orwell’s Animal Farm. I think the knacker’s cart is pulling up now. First they destroyed our capacity to resist. Now, they’re going to destroy us at the most fundamental level possible.
Hopefully you find something of use. Your remarks were so correct, so on point that I couldn’t help but want to add something to the discussion. I’m always open to discussing this in greater detail.
Best Regards Badgers,
- Letter to the Badgers on sexual assault against disabled males - March 9, 2017
- Letter to the badgers: Linda Fairstein’s famous quote - December 1, 2016
- Letter to the Badgers: Excerpt from a Swedish newspaper - August 6, 2016
My take on the Ghomeshi trial is that the accused and his victims are gaming the system. A definitive statement of acquittal by the judge showing he was the innocent victim of conniving possessive ex lovers is worth 100 times it’s weight in platinum.
How else is a guy who took gender studies dumb enough to commit violent acts on women, dumb enough to video record them, and then somehow dumb let the video fall into his employers hands.