Canada’s Soviet System for Speech Control

Ezra Levant says that while he beat the fatwa, he still lost his freedom. That may be the understatement of the year.

Ezra Levant It is ironic that President Bush is planning to ask China’s leadership (one of those diplomatic-but-futile gestures inspired by the State Department) for more freedom for the Chinese, even as Canada becomes the North American continent’s bastion of soviet-style speech control.

Mr. Levant describes the tribulation, trial, and aftermath of his nightmare at the hands of Canadian bureaucrats. It is squirmingly Kafkaesque:

Some 900 days after I became the only person in the Western world charged with the “offence” of republishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, the government has finally acquitted me of illegal “discrimination.” Taxpayers are out more than $500,000 for an investigation that involved fifteen bureaucrats at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The legal cost to me and the now-defunct Western Standard magazine is $100,000.

In other words, Mr. Levant spent more than two years tied in a pretzel of uncertainty, a victim of the libel terrorism that is running amok in formerly boring Canada.

He compares his experience to what it might have been if Canada had not turned to the Chinese method of trial by fire:
– – – – – – – –

The case would have been thrown out long ago if I had been charged in a criminal court, instead of a human rights commission. That’s because accused criminals have the right to a speedy trial. Accused publishers at human rights commissions do not.

And if I had been a defendant in a civil court, the judge would now order the losing parties to pay my legal bills. Instead, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities won’t have to pay me a dime. Neither will Syed Soharwardy, the Calgary imam who abandoned his identical complaint against me this spring.

Both managed to hijack a secular government agency to prosecute their radical Islamic fatwa against me – the first blasphemy case in Canada in over 80 years. Their complaints were dismissed, but it is inaccurate to say that they lost: They got the government to rough me up for nearly three years, at no cost to them. The process I was put through was a punishment in itself – and a warning to any other journalists who would defy radical Islam.

However, Canada’s government is not secular. The Canadian government has not given its religion a name – after all, that would indeed violate its own premise about correct-speak, and correct-speak is the new liturgical language for the dance of the Church of We Tell You What You Must Say. Notice it’s not limited to what you may say out loud. There are also rules for what you have to say, just as there were in the Soviet Union (which also claimed not to have a state religion. The people knew otherwise):

Exactly two months before I was acquitted, another Albertan was sentenced by the HRC on the exact same charge: “discrimination” in a newspaper. Five years ago, Reverend Stephen Boissoin wrote a controversial column about gay rights. It passed all of Gundara’s home-made rules: It was in the context of a broader debate; it was followed by many opposing letters to the editor; it had a “purpose,” etc. But Rev. Boissoin was fined $7,000 and banned for life from giving sermons or even sending private e-mails that were “disparaging”. To top it off, he was ordered by the HRC to write a public renunciation of his faith. [my emphasis – D]

It’s obvious why I was acquitted and Boissoin was convicted. I’ve been a political pain in the neck for the HRC. Rev. Boissoin? He was quiet, so he’s road kill. But neither of us are free – we both have to have our views checked out by the government.

If neither man is free, then no citizen of Canada is free to speak up — as he or she will discover should they run athwart some bureaucrat who decides they don’t like what’s being said.

I haven’t read the pronouncement of the tribunal in the case of Mr. Levant. However, its decision against Reverend Boisson is astounding for its condescension and obvious bias. The tribunal of the Church of Canada has spoken and you’d better write its words on your heart.

From the decision on Reverend Boisson’s mortal sins:

Dr. Lund seeks the following remedies:

a. That Mr. Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. be formally disallowed to publish discriminatory letters in newspapers by email, on the radio, in public speeches and on the internet in the future. Further, that they be prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future against the complainant or any of the complainant’s witnesses relating to their involvement in the complaint.

b. That damages for pain and suffering be paid by the respondents to Dr. Lund in the amount of $5,000.00.

c. That an Order for damages for pain and suffering directly related to the retaliation that Dr. Lund has suffered be paid by the respondents to Dr. Lund in the amount of $5,000.00.

d. An Order for additional damages for pain and suffering be paid to Ms. Janelle Dodd in the amount of $2,500.00.

e. An Order that Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. publish a summary of the ruling of the case in the editorial section of the Red Deer Advocate.

6. Mr. Boissoin argues the only appropriate remedy in the case is an Order requiring Mr. Boissoin “to refrain in the future from committing the same or similar contravention” pursuant to Section 32(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.


The Panel agrees with the submissions of Dr. Lund that the Panel is to use the principle of fairness in determining appropriate remedies:

It is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the Code are remedial, not punitive…[…] human rights legislation is aimed at ameliorating the effects of discrimination, rather than punishing the perpetrator.

The Panel agrees also with Dr. Lund’s submission that hate propaganda remedies should have a symbolic and educational value…:

Any remedy awarded by this, or any Tribunal, will inevitably serve a number of purposes: prevention and elimination of discriminatory practices is only one of the outcomes flowing from an Order issued as a consequence of these proceedings. There is also a significant symbolic value in the public denunciation of the actions that are the subject of this complaint. Similarly, there is the potential educative and ultimately larger preventative benefit that can be achieved by open discussion of the principles enunciated in this or any Tribunal decision.”

The Panel also agrees with the submissions of Mr. Boissoin when he states that this is not a criminal case. It would be inappropriate to punish Mr. Boissoin for his actions and I find that the purpose of the remedy in this case, is not to punish but rather to attempt as far as possible, to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination insofar as is possible and to denunciate [sic] the actions which were the subject of the complaint with a view to educate and hopefully prevent actions of this nature in future. [my emphasis — D]

Section 32 of the Act limits to a large degree the available redress that the Act provides in affording opportunities and privileges through awarding wages, lost income and expenses to the person or persons dealt with contrary to the Act and to placing the person dealt with contrary to the Act in the same position that they would have been in had it not been for the contravention of the Act. In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward seeking redress by the contravention of the Act by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

That is not to say, however, that some financial redress is inappropriate in this case. The Panel notes that the respondent alleges he does not have the actual wherewithal to pay a fine or costs, however, there was no evidence on that point and no information as to the financial circumstances of Mr. Boissoin were brought forward in his submissions.

The Panel has heard no submissions from The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

The Panel does find that Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.

The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:

a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint.

Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

b. That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.

c. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.

d. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.

e. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.

f. That Ms. Dodd shall provide a list of expenses incurred as a result of her testimony at the hearing to the Panel Chair for review and such sum shall be paid to her for her actual expenses associated with this matter up to the maximum amount of $2,000.00 as directed by the Panel Chair upon receiving her list of expenses. Such amounts so ordered by the Panel Chair shall be paid jointly and severally by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

No, the point of the tribunal is not to punish. Of course not. The point of this religious tribunal is to lead the stray sheep back to the fold of correct-speak and proper-think. It is one of those “this-hurts-me-more-than-it-hurts-you” moments.

Mr. Levant says of his ruling:

The 11-page government report into my activities is a breathtakingly arrogant document. In it, Pardeep Gundara, a low-level bureaucrat, assumes the role of editor-in-chief for the entire province of Alberta. He went through our magazine article and gave his own thoughts on the cartoons, and pronounced on our magazine’s decision to publish them. The government’s wannabe journalist makes a spelling error, he gets facts wrong and he’s obviously not good with deadlines. We’d never have hired him at our magazine. But the laugh is on us – he’s apparently our boss, and the boss of all journalists in Alberta.

In his report, Gundara presents as “fact” his personal opinion of the Muhammad cartoons. He says they’re “stereotypical, negative and offensive.” That’s one viewpoint. Others have a different view. Why should anyone care about Gundara’s personal opinion? Do I need permission from him – or anyone other than my conscience – before I publish things in the future? Is this column okay by him?

Gundara forgave me and the Western Standard our sins because, according to him, the offensiveness of the cartoons was “muted by the context of the accompanying article” and we ran letters both for and against the cartoons in our subsequent issue. He also acquitted us because “the cartoons were not simply stuck in the middle of the magazine with no purpose or related story.”

Let me translate: You’d better be “reasonable” in how you use your freedoms, or you won’t be allowed to keep them. You’d better not run political cartoons “simply stuck in the middle” of a magazine. You’d better have a “purpose” for being “negative” that is approved by bureaucrat, when he finally gets around to it three years later.

As Mr. Levant notes, this is “not a victory for freedom of the press” since the press is now subject to the whims dictates of the government. As he says, Canadians have a right to a free press in spite of government, but he does not add that this right has now become theoretical.

Nor is his ordeal really over and done with:

Of course I’m glad to be done with this malicious prosecution – though my antagonists can still appeal my acquittal.

But two years ago, the HRC told me if I paid a few thousand dollars to my accusers and gave them a page in our magazine, I’d be set free. Most victims of the HRCs accept deals like that, and it’s certainly cheaper than a 900-day fight. But getting the approval of the HRC’s censor is morally no better than their shake-down attempt. Whether I have to pay off a radical imam or appease a meddling bureaucrat, it’s still an infringement on our Canadian liberties.

Mr. Levant, sir. Please reconsider your words and look at the reality: liberty in Canada, at least where speech is concerned, has been taken away. Your rights are in the hands of the Church of Correct-Speak and Proper-Thought.

All Canadians should remember that. After all, it is not the desire of their rulers to punish offenders. Not at all. Instead, by way of example, you must understand the error of your ways and publicly repent your sins.

The genius of this kind of soft control is that you cannnot hear silenced speech. Thus, there is no way to gauge what is not being said now because of these restraints. Somewhere, Stalin is applauding — silently, of course.

I hope our readers will go over carefully the language of this ruling. There is much to be learned from a careful reading of the decision. For example, can you infer from the wording that they wished someone had come forward seeking redress:

In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward seeking redress by the contravention of the Act by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
In other words, it is not the case that there weren’t ” direct victims”. Rather, what happened is that none of these weenies were willing to step forward and claim a share of the pot.

Do they wonder at the lack of response? Were Canadian heads averted from this naked display of inquisitorial power? Does the tribunal understand that?

Fortunately, none of our guilty neighbors to the north will be branded with a big “SO” on their forehead (for “SPEECH OFFENDER”). Such a restraint would be too…American.

Previous posts on this topic:

Ezra Levant is off the Hook
Just Desserts: Eating Taqiyya en Flambé
Quitting the Canadian Inquisition
The Struggle for Free Speech in Canada

Hat Tip: TB

23 thoughts on “Canada’s Soviet System for Speech Control

  1. I have followed this story and talked to my family about it for many months now. If you didn’t know better you would think it a fake…
    The fact is that the CHRC grabbed on to two tiger tails at the same time; Ezra and Mark Steyn/McCleans and, they had no idea what hit them…
    It was all well and good to prosecute a homophobic Reverend or, some guy running a neo-nazi dress up site. But, when they chomped down on the regular press, they got much more than they bargained for!
    I am not the least surprised that Ezra’s travail was dismissed; too much publicity, after all MP’s are starting to sit up and take notice of this scam as is the international community. That might jepordize their comfy gov’t jobs!!! (The NYT showed up at the Steyn/McCleans show trial!)
    The latest in this sad ordeal is a potty mouthed comic named Guy Earl. It was like someone hit him upside the head with a 2 X 4. Can’t make potty mouthed fun of lesbians in your front row disrupting your show? WTF??? It took him months to wrap his brain around the trouble he found himself in. Even then, he refused to acknowledge that he was at least the third high profile defendant in recent time. The tell was that while he railed about his situation, and claimed he had spent the past year “researching” the HRC’s in Canada, he refused to acknowledge that conservatives like Ezra and Mark had paved the way for him. In fact, he claimed he didn’t even know who they were! Some research Guy…
    Hell, I even sent his legal fund $20 bucks and, I would never be caught dead in a venue in which he performs! I clicked over to his legal fund from Ezra’s site…

  2. As a Canadian I am quite happy this issue has been covered by the international press. As boring as we Canadians are (hey, we gave you guys Seth Rogen so cut us some slack), there are some SERIOUS issues in our “democracy.” It is rare that Canadian issues are reported on so I wanted to say thank-you for noticing.

    Reading GoV all the time exposes me to the big problems of Islamization in stricken places like the UK, Germany, etc. I would like to point out that Canada is setup for some very scary demographics in the coming years.

    I’m referring specifically to the kangaroo courts known as “Human Rights Commissions” that exist in the provinces (as well as a national HRC). The HRCs do not require evidence for a complaint to be ruled upon. Adding to this is the fact that the rules governing the HRCs and the rules used to determine whether an offense has occurred are very loosely defined. It is therefore very easy to have a case launched against you for something as insignificant as what Ezra Levant did – publish a cartoon in his (now defunct) newspaper.

    This isn’t the first time this has happened. Read up on Mark Steyn’s case, where Elmasry and a few law students from Osgoode (FROM ONTARIO) launched a complaint against Macleans magazine for publishing an excerpt of Steyn’s book “America Alone.” The basis of their complaint? – “Public perception of Muslims and Islam as a religion has been negatively affected and influenced by his article. They demanded monetary compensation, but also asked for…wait for it…a rebuttal piece (authored by someone Elmasry chooses) to be published in Macleans (a privately owned magazine).

    The situation in Canada has gotten out of control. I know fellow Conservatives who refuse to donate to the Party until they take a stance of aiming to kill off the HRCs.

    GoV has hit the nail right on the head: free speech in Canada is and has been dead a long time now.

    Yay Socialism!

  3. Sorry, the reason for the emphasis on the FROM ONTARIO comment was because the case was launched in the British Columbia HRC (which I forgot to mention).


  4. Canada is nuts. It ranks alongside some of the worst European countries.

    I have said before that globalist Multiculturalists have essentially recycled the old Communist ideas, only with a twist. The Communists believed (and still do) that conflicts are caused by economic differences. Hence, if you permanently remove all economic differences, you will permanently remove all conflicts, and we will enjoy Eternal Peace. After the Cold War, they put more emphasis on racial and ethnic differences. They need to be broken down and destroyed by any means necessary, starting with white people, of course. That goes without saying. Once all cultures and races have been merged into one, all causes of conflicts will be gone and we can enjoy Eternal Peace.

    Notice that this is entirely compatible with the Islamic concept of the global “Umma”. This goal is so noble that you should lie and cheat as much as necessary in order to achieve it. You shouldn’t feel bad about it, it’s for a Good Cause.

    James Bond has a license to kill. Leftists have a license to lie.

  5. Canada faces the same situation as Europe, a dying country, massive immigration/colonization, and speech codes that make it impossible to talk about either issue.

    Want to criticize immigrants because they’re conquering your homeland? Nope, that’s out, that would imply all people aren’t interchangeable and exactly alike.

    Want to criticize social rot that makes it so easy to be conquered? No that would hurt people’s feelings. Sorry, you’re just out of luck. Find some other topic to discuss. I hear it’s okay to bash christians still, so why not take a punch at them?

    I find the masses so soporific about their coming fate that they deserve it though. It’s not like, regardless of any speech code, the truth isn’t out there for anyone who wants to find it. We aren’t so much being oppressed as drugging ourselves with TV and sports to death. Acts like these by the government are mere nuisances compared to consumerism or workaholism. And unfortunately, long after the HRC is abolished, those problems would still destroy the country.

  6. These Canadian so called Human Rights Commissions are scary stuff. They effectively circumvent any due process into a nightmare of totaliterian proportions. The goverment is turned into an active participant in the destruction of freedom of speech.

    I have some Canadian friends who were always telling me how much freer Canada was than the US. However, after I’ve bombarded them with the developments of this and other outrageous cases involving these “tribunals”, they have shut up like clams.

  7. As a white male living in Canada, I would like to point out I have probably the best chance of landing in hot water for talking.

    Diamed is exactly right – you wanna bash someone’s religion? Go ahead and take on Christianity…that terrible terrible religion has plauged our country for years now and has brought us nothing but trouble. Also, I hear Santa is evil and the idea of Christmas undermines our very Charter of Rights and Freedoms – take him on as well.

    Gosh darn those Christians!

  8. Diamed: The primary thing we can do on an individual basis is to arm ourselves, both with guns and with knowledge of and pride in our cultural achievements. We also need to figure out a way to make those who betray us fear us. Those who have participated in Eurabia and the European Union’s organized surrender to Muslims and mass immigration should be prepared to stand trial for high treason, and know that they will be hunted for the rest of their lives until they stand trial for their crimes. They need should know that there will be consequences for their actions. North Americans need to do the same thing.

  9. fjordman-

    “We also need to figure out a way to make those who betray us fear us.”

    “should be prepared to stand trial for high treason, and know that they will be hunted for the rest of their lives until they stand trial for their crimes.”

    Precisely. Obviously right now they have the upper hand and view us (Gov readers and such) as marginal at best. But as things get worse the tide will and is starting to turn (Denmark and Italy are two that come to mind). These elites must be told on every occasion that they will be held accountable. The proof of that fear will become palpable after the first armed uprising when the crackdown on the citizenry begins. Just as liberals let it be known that any leader can be hauled off to the Hague at anytime. We must do the same. The capital of the first country that says NO MORE would be a great place.

  10. How did Canadian law get here? Traditionally, discrimination only arises when the act is direct e.g. refusing employment or housing, not general polemics against nobody in particular.

  11. I have said it before here and I will say it again. The reason the US has the 1st two amendments to our Constitution is obvious. They are NOT mutually exclusive, in fact they are mutually dependent. They protect each other. The first allows the protection of the second by saying what you wish, the second protects the first by giving the means. If you have allowed yourselves to be denied the second, you cannot defend the first. It is simple as that.

    The EU and GB to include Canada are done precisely because you have allowed yourselves to be disarmed. That is why Heller vs DC was so important here in the US.

    Only a massive groundswell on the part of the EU, GB & Canada with Oz will allow this invasion of freedom to be rolled back.

    Good luck.

  12. “..Pardeep Gundara, a low-level bureaucrat, assumes the role of editor-in-chief for the entire province of Alberta”.

    Imagine that, this Third World immigrant/refugee from some South Asian hellhole, who only got his/her (who can tell?) job through affirmative action, deigns to tell free-born Canadians what we’re allowed to read or, presumably, think. And all this in Canada’s only “conservative” province.

    Deport this primitive barbarian Gundara, and as for the rest of the HRC censors, as Ezra says…

    Fire. Them. All.

  13. Robohobo: The reason the US has the 1st two amendments to our Constitution is obvious. They are NOT mutually exclusive, in fact they are mutually dependent. They protect each other. The first allows the protection of the second by saying what you wish, the second protects the first by giving the means. If you have allowed yourselves to be denied the second, you cannot defend the first. It is simple as that.

    The historical fact that so many tyrannies systematically disarmed their populations as a precondition to stripping away all other rights demonstrates just how important the right to bear arms continues to be. I wonder if the Founding Fathers had to use a coin toss to determine which amendment went first and which went second.

  14. I can see by a few of the comments here, people know very little about Canada. You are all dreaming if you think the people of Canada are unarmed. People in Canada did not disarm; they just registered one of their guns for hunting.

  15. We have the same HRC sickness in the US. Not as bad, but it’s coming. They persecuted a restaurant owner in Philadelphia because he put up a sign asking his customers to speak English when they ordered. He beat the rap but had to go through all kinds of rigamarole. In Nashville, a local politician put together a petition to put a referendum on the local ballot to declare English the official language of Nashville government. The local HRC has tried to block this petition despite it being signed by thousands of voters. Churchill said that fascism would come to Western democracies in the guise of “anti-fascism” and boy, was he right about that.

  16. fjordman – a massive tax strike is what they fear most. Take away their toys, the money they squander on coddling Third World colonizers, that would scare them to death — the problem is that someone has to go first. If only a few withheld their taxes, big deal. If 10s of millions did it all at once, they’d get the message. Nobody’s happy at paying through the nose for the level of “government” that we Westerners get for our taxes. My husband and I send 35K a year just to Washingon and then we pay thousands more in state income and property tax. Yet our “government” makes it plain that they value an illegal immigrant who squeezed over the border three days ago more than they value me and my husband. I long to say “go get your taxes from the illegals that you love so much.” What would happen if you told European politicians to go get their taxes from the non-working Muslim slackers they love so much at the expense of native people?

  17. I saw this on Hibernia Girl’s blog — a new book has been published, that does for Multi-Culti what “Animal Farm” did for Communism. It’s available on Amazon US right now and will be available on Amazon UK on August 13th. The book is called “Cry Wolf” and it is by an English professor called Paul Lake. I have purchased a copy and would be happy to write a review of it for the Gates after I finish it. Buy it here:

    Here is a description of the book: “Product Description

    A powerful tale about America’s place in the world during these volatile times and a warning about the inherent dangers of unregulated immigration and identity politics, this playful narrative tells the story of the animals of Green Pastures Farm. When the farm’s owner dies, the domesticated animals learn to tend the farm themselves and live in harmony, based on their basic tenets of “No Trespassing” and equality for all farm animals. The farm’s balance and peace is irrevocably shaken when a wounded doe is allowed into the farm enclosure and is followed by an influx of other wild animals who threaten not only the farm’s hard-earned winter food supply, but the very ideals on which Green Pastures Farm was founded.”

  18. Joanne: People in Canada did not disarm; they just registered one of their guns for hunting.

    From what I understand, a gun owner is not allowed to move their own gun anywhere off their property without first obtaining a transportation permit from the RCMP. Further, right to “carry” permits are exceedingly difficult to obtain and—aside from professional bodyguards and private detectives—are usually only issued to back country prospectors.

    If your weapon is “locked” in your house by confining laws, it is of nowhere near the use of one that can be taken where needed at will. Please let me know if these laws have changed in recent years. Somehow, I doubt that they have.

  19. Zenster. If you are talking about carrying pistols, you are correct, the law is very restrictive. However, there are 7 million gun owners in Canada and they collectively own 20 million guns. The population of Canada is 32 million, so you can see there are plenty of guns to go around. Canada is a hunter’s paradise (check out websites), and moose, black bear, deer, etc., are not killed by throwing stones at them or stabbing them with pointed sticks (bow hunting excepted).

  20. Carl in Jerusalem posts about a related case. In Canada, novelist Howard Rotberg’s lecture at a bookstore was disrupted by a Palestinian and an Iraqi Kurd, who accused him of racism. The bookstore chain won’t carry the book and they issued a press release claiming Rotberg had made statements he denies making, and Rotberg is suing them. Read the rest here, it’s pretty shocking.


  21. Joanne, that’s how it started here, too. In the 50s the government required the registration of certain classes of rifle and shotgun merely so, it as claimed, the police would know where to look if they needed heavier weapons. The police have always been unarmed in this country (sir Robert Peel seemed to think it was safer to have them borrow weapons from the general population rather than carry their own, having learned from the pre-existing city watches, who were armed, undisciplined and tended to use their power for personal gain) and, if they needed guns, would ask passers-by if they could borrow them.

    The dangerous weapons act was a rather cynical manipulation of that traditional generosity. The local bobbies would already know where those guns were so registering them was unnecessary, but that was part of the story they span. Then they used the enabling portion of the act to progressively tighten control over those weapons until we ended up in the situation we’re in now.

    I guess Canada is a bit late and a bit slow implementing it but once you’re on that path it’s very hard to turn around and say “wait a minute, this is wrong.” Each step seems innocuous, even logical in some instances. So you have to register a rifle. In a few more years maybe you’ll be required to keep the ammunition at the police station, or you’ll be required to put it forward for regular inspection by a local authority, or perhaps they’ll just start restricting what sort of rifles or ammunition you’re allowed to own. For the greater good, you understand. 🙂

Comments are closed.