Images of trucks rolling across Canada with crowds lining the highways, waving Canadian flags, were signs of hope a few weeks ago. These truckers, our essential workers, for months on end hauled loads, risking their lives, in the face of a pandemic when no vaccine was in sight.
I live in Surrey, BC which is sometimes referred to as “Little India” because of the large East Indian representation. For about a year we saw people on street corners with signs, “No Farmers, No Food.” They were supporting a protest in India. Trudeau even got behind them with his support.
On January 15 Prime Minister Trudeau passed a federal mandate requiring truckers to be vaccinated or forced to quarantine. About 10% of truckers in Canada are not vaccinated. Within a week the U.S. imposed a similar mandate, pulling an estimated 16,000 truckers off the road.
Shortages and delays were noticed almost immediately. But the real issue was that this happened as a result of men and women losing their livelihood due to a needless government mandate. Omicron is spreading without any regard for who is vaccinated and who is unvaccinated.
A convoy of truckers began to travel to Canada’s capital, Ottawa, at the end of January to speak with Prime Minister Trudeau. Trudeau has a history of not speaking to truckers and he didn’t entertain the thought of listening to the truckers for the entire three weeks they parked their rigs in downtown Ottawa. He had three weeks to make peace with his people.
This protest was of Trudeau’s making.
And then the Prime Minister of Canada made things exponentially worse by calling in what is equivalent to the National Guard, seizing private personal information, freezing bank accounts of protestors and their supporters, and arresting unarmed people who were peacefully exercising their democratic rights.
The lesson for Canadians is that you cannot, as an ordinary citizen, expect your prime minister to listen and you will be penalized for supporting a legal protest even if it is entirely within your civil rights. Authorities will look the other way while protestors are kneed in the back, trampled by officers on horseback, sprayed with rubber bullets and tear gas, butted with military rifles, and harrassed in their place of business for assisting protesters. I’ve watched too many videos to count that were posted by ordinary citizens and my heart is broken.
It does not cease to amaze me how a peaceful protest can be villainized by the press. But with millions of annual support by the Trudeau liberal government, I suppose the journalists had no other option, unless they wanted to face a fate similar to that of the truckers. Just last week a local radio personality, Kid Carson, found his position terminated. This is what happens if you step beyond the accepted narrative.
Gone are the days of freedom of thought and speech. Gone are the days of freedom of the press.
Gone are the days of freedom of peaceful protest. It is difficult to imagine a more peaceful protest than that of the truckers’ Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.
Trudeau has discredited himself on the world stage and lost the confidence of the Canadian people.
I have for some time ignored all conversations about a New World Order and The Great Reset, maybe because I thought I had more important things on my mind. Maybe because I thought people were obsessing over the same old global dominance theory I’ve heard for decades. I didn’t want to get involved in talk by a bunch of people getting their knickers in a knot.
Now, very recently, I’ve begun to think I had better give this a listen.
I was alerted by a Western Standard interview of Kyle Kemper. For those of you who don’t who Kyle Kemper is, he is the younger, half brother of the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau.
I am particular about my sources and when I heard the half brother of Trudeau say that Klaus Schwab was proud of his protege, Justin Trudeau, and proud of how he, Schwab, had infiltrated the Liberal government, I sat up and listened. I started to look into the matter. Here is what I found. For your interest, the January 27, 2022 Western Standard interview of Kemper can be found here.
Klaus Schwab, is famously known for the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” He has indeed written a book, published in July of 2020, early into the coronavirus pandemic, entitled Covid-19 and The Great Reset. In it he imagines possibilities presented by the pandemic—changes on a global scale. I have not yet finished reading the book but what stands out for me is the “opportunity” for global elites, banks and corporations to have a much greater role in government, globally.
A wikipedia search will inform you that Klaus Schwab is “a German engineer and economist best known as the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.”
Klaus Schwab and Trudeau do indeed have a close relationship as is evident in this 2016 video clip. Schwab addresses Trudeau as he fantasizes about “a diverse world, characterized by plurality…it will be a young world, a digital world. Now who could represent such a world better than you, Prime Minister? We are very glad that at the beginning of this meeting you are talking to us, to represent a new, open Canada. I want to use this opportunity to thank our Canadian constituency which always has been a very loyal, and very much engaged, constituency, as a whole. But now, I think, with you… we can make sure that in the future we strengthen the cooperation even more with your country.”
I have observed how entities with money and global influence are gaining increasing leverage over our government. In the back of my mind I am thinking about how this might relate to the Canadian Truckers’ protest and Trudeau’s refusal to speak with the truckers.
A little bit about the World Economic Forum. This is from their website:
World Economic Forum Partners are leading global companies developing solutions to the world’s greatest challenges. They are the driving force behind the Forum’s programmes.
Our Partners engage in Forum Platforms to shape the future, accessing networks and experts to ensure strategic decision-making on the most pressing world issues.
On the WEF website I found a Jan 24, 2019 article entitled: António Guterres: Read the UN Secretary-General’s Davos speech in full. Guterres states the following:
There is no way governments or intergovernmental organisations alone can deal with climate change, can deal with the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or can deal with migration. We need more and more a multilateralism that also is able to incorporate the contribution of all these other sectors, and I think the World Economic Forum has an absolutely vital role to play.
On June 13, 2019, in New York, USA, The World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework. On the WEF website we read, “The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab.” Here is a further report:
The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The partnership identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations.
Here is an article of interest: Who’s who at Davos Agenda Week. The meeting of the WEF was held in Davos, Switzerland in January 2021. The image of Klaus Schwab with Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China is quite compelling.
Speaking of corporate interests in government, I am wondering about the influence over the Canadian government of the Power Corporation of Canada which appears to have close ties to the People’s Republic of China.
I will leave you to do your own further investigation to satisfy your curiosity. In the meantime, I feel a little chagrined to be so far behind in my own information gathering just because I thought this was a “conspiracy theory.”
There is a Facebook page devoted to Pierre Poilievre and people on it are putting a great deal of pressure on him to become the leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada. This week the current leader, Erin O’Toole, was ousted for his weak support of the Freedom Convoy of truckers in Canada, at least that looks like the most apparent reason. He has also waffled on other Conservative positions, particularly during the election campaign, last September, when the Conservative party was defeated by the Liberal Party who gained a second minority government.
From a personal standpoint, I can think of a number of reasons why Poilievre should not become Conservative Party leader. I understand that he is probably the MP who has spoken most eloquently and voiced the most coherent arguments in parliament in opposition to the Liberal Party. He has a very good grasp of history, current affairs and government. Here are a few recent videos of Poilievre, to give an idea for those who may not be familiar with him. They do not represent…. The authoritarian left…. and Canadians are uniting…
However, here are the reasons why I do not think he should run for the leadership of the party, although I think he could potentially win the leadership race, handsomely.
From my observation, I think he has what it takes. He understands what needs to happen, has the ability to communicate this to the public as well as the will to see it happen. You ask, then why not?
Take the interview with Aaron Gunn. If he were Prime Minister he would not be able to do these kinds of informative interviews. He would have to take a combative or defensive stance as part of political posturing. Right now he is educating people about what is happening in government and in Canada. By becoming Prime Minister (of course I’m assuming he could win a Federal election) he would be elevated to another plane with very different expectations. His behaviour would change. There is no guaranteeing that the people who support him now would follow through if he was elected.
The fact is that the public needs time to adjust to change. People might not agree with the changes he proposes if they were suddenly implemented. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an example of someone who had a great deal of foresight and implemented many positive changes but one of the things he was faulted for was for not taking the time to bring the people along with him.
The point is that large scale change needs to happen in the hearts of the people, first, otherwise they will just vote out the leader. Poilievre is doing this essential work of informing and bringing insight. And he is doing it without becoming the target as he would if he was Prime Minister.
It takes an incredible amount of time and energy to acquire a grasp of the myriad of concerns facing a country and then to articulate them with a far-reaching influence. Right now Poilievre is not hindered by the distractions of being leader of a party and can give interviews to people like Aaron Gunn. As a party leader he would not have the luxury of focus.
There is also the obvious fact that he would be a tremendous support to a good leader. Leaders need a team of powerful, capable, intelligent and articulate men and women behind them.
At the present Poilievre may be the one who is “preparing the way” for the next leader. Until he thinks he is ready, which doesn’t appear to be the case, I would side with him and continue to endorse what he appears to be doing very well–spreading a vital message and touching the hearts of the Canadian people.
I do not rule out the possibility that Poilievre could choose to embrace a broader leadership role, representing the Canadian people, in the future. Before that happens we may need to lay a new foundation for our country, one that involves recognizing the kind of leaders who have the interests of Canadians at heart. In the meantime, let’s not minimize the impact of his current role.
As a Canadian, who just witnessed the historic Canadian Truckers Freedom Convoy travel from coast to coast across Canada to convene in our great capital, Ottawa, for a peaceful demonstration on Saturday, January 29, to protest vaccine mandates imposed this month on truckers by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, I find myself perhaps a little more surprised than I might usually be by the actions of two Canadian musicians—Neil Young and Joni Mitchel—who took it upon themselves, this week, to give an ultimatum to Spotify regarding vaccine “misinformation.”
On Tuesday I came across the Global News headline, Neil Young threatens to pull music from Spotify over Joe Rogan vaccine ‘disinformation.’ Not much later it was followed by the CTV News headline, Spotify pulling down Neil Young’s music collection. I waited and the plot thickened as CTV News reported the next day, Joni Mitchell removing music from Spotify in solidarity with Neil Young.
“I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines….” —Neil Young professed.
I think this can only be understood in the context of the original article’s statement that “a group of 270 scientists and medical professionals previously shared an open letter with the platform on New Year’s Eve.”
Young has removed the open letter he penned on his personal site and this is unfortunate because I really wanted to get a closer look at the letter. As a matter of fact, I thought I read the letter on a news site which no longer has it either and to me the wording sounded suspiciously familiar. If somebody put Neil Young up to this, that didn’t go over so well. By no means do I think we have seen the end of this little skirmish. Not at all.
But it really is about nothing. I mean with all the money spent on advertising and the procurement of vaccines, and all the effort already put into stamping out “misinformation” I can hardly imagine that some talk show host could be a threat to the vaccine effort. With between 80-90% of adults already vaccinated and health officials telling us that everybody—vaccinated and unvaccinated—will get the Omicron variant and we should think of it as the flu and go back to work in five days, how can this “misinformation” be any kind of a threat?
Sometimes timing is everything. Just like Prime Minister Trudeau’s timing of slapping a vaccine mandate on truckers and potentially taking 16,000 Canadian truckers off the road—drivers who made sure we had food in our grocery isles during two years of a pandemic—comes at a very bad time, I think the open letter to Spotify comes at the wrong time as well. Because this virus is going to have its way, without any regard for mandates or vaccination status. It’s much ado about nothing. And it’s not very friendly.
It surprised me how long it took for experts to agree that SARS-Cov-2 could be spread in aerosols.
On a cool, humid day I watched a person wearing a mask and saw a plume of vapour escaping their mask. I observed how far the vapor travelled and it was several feet. Had I stood nearby, the vapor, along with any virus particles it carried me, would have reached me and if it could travel through the other person’s mask, it could travel equally well through mine. This was the day I knew for myself that masks did little to retain aerosols.
But for those who would like a little more information, I’ll add there are studies that indicate surgical masks deliver a slightly higher level of protection. You have to be careful when looking at studies because I’ve noticed they like to combine hand washing with mask wearing and the result is different when only mask wearing is the factor.
I’ve mostly ignored the numerous articles comparing different masks because I’m happy with my mask. I have faithfully followed the masking regulations, out of respect for those who see masks as important. The reason I’ve ignored the articles is because improving masks means adding more layers, more filtration systems, or closing all possible gaps in order to prevent air from escaping. Eventually we will suffocate if we can’t get air through our masks. Or at least we will become oxygen deficient. If our masks are so airtight that we cannot expel the carbon dioxide our body is trying to get rid of when we exhale, then we will breath it back in, along with all the viral particles we may or may not have. I prefer to breathe in fresh, clean oxygen so I try and limit my mask use. The only way to do this is to avoid going out as much as possible to places where masks are required.
I have put up with mask wearing because I didn’t want to major on the minors, so to speak. I told myself I am not significantly harmed by this mandate so I will tolerate it. I don’t believe that mask wearing is entirely harmless. I re-wore a mask once and re-caught the respiratory illness I had, making it last nearly three weeks longer.
I wear a mask out of consideration for others who have very strong feelings about masks, even if their beliefs are not supported by evidence. I just haven’t wanted to keep making a fuss about masks so I went along with the game.
I knew the real reason for wearing masks was to give a sense of security to the fearful. People who are afraid feel better if they can perform an action and do something visible that they feel will make a difference. I wish there was a least a placebo effect for masks, but I think studies will not prove this to be the case.
Our BC public health official, Dr. Bonnie Henry, is documented to have resisted mask wearing for the longest time, repeatedly, publicly, insisting they made minimal difference and could give a false sense of security. What changed? The data? The efficacy of masks? No. Opinion polls changed.
People were insistent on wanting to wear masks. They wrote articles. Businesses put pressure on health officials. People wanted regulations that could make them compel others to wear masks into their businesses and places of work so they could feel more secure. Eventually our respected Dr. Bonnie Henry caved. Literally. She went against what she had been saying for months.
I admit that at the beginning of the pandemic I was greatly reassured by Dr. Henry’s expertise, since she has had experience with pandemics. I thought we were especially privileged to have her on board in our province. But, sadly, we are not all impervious to external pressure. She was also the doctor who made a complete reversal of the famed headline of May 25, 2021, No vaccine passports in B.C’s future: Dr. Bonnie Henry. Here is what she said then,
“This virus has shown us that there are inequities in our society that have been exacerbated by this pandemic, and there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by the use of things like vaccine passports for services with public access here in British Columbia,” provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry said.
These societal inequities were later exacerbated when she changed her mind. In other words she lied to us.
Below is the data about mask wearing, directly from the World Health Organization.
Global Influenza Programme: Non Pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risks and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, document published by the World Health Organization in 2019. The downloadable file can be found on the WHO website.
In the document we read that according to the study there is a not significant “reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced (RR:0.92, 95% CI=0.75–1.12, I2=30%, P=0.40). The article adds, “the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission. “
The reason I am speaking out now is because Dr. Bonnie Henry has told us “everybody” will get the Omicron virus. There is no stopping it. It’s time to point out the obvious. Masks are just for show. I might add I just had Omicron myself this week.
I am trying to imagine a scenario in which vaccine mandates would be a good plan and it’s difficult to actually come up with any situation. If people were dying so rapidly that everyone knew we were doomed, and only those who were vaccinated lived, a mandate would not be required because people would be desperate and lining up and demanding the vaccine. Unfortunately, if we were in this dire situation, it is unlikely that a vaccine could be produced in time to save the planet.
Event 201, held in October of 2019 and hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation proposed a response to a theoretical pandemic. One part of the strategy to ‘diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences’ of a pandemic was to focus on the control of misinformation.
I think this part of the strategy has seen abuse. Information around the pandemic has been tightly controlled to the point of being misleading because of what has been omitted.
So much effort has gone into controlling the dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic that people’s thoughts, if they have been following the media, are not truly original. We’ve been programmed as a result of a pre-determined narrative that has been fed to us, relentlessly.
My husband and I don’t have TV and Cable but we went out for his birthday to a restaurant with several TV’s on display and while we dined, every few minutes there was an image of a person having a needle put in their arm. First of all, it is an image that I find disturbing, but more importantly, I thought about the people who have seen this many more times than I have. I can’t imagine how many times this has come across the screen in the past couple of years, never mind the funding that has gone into this advertising.
What we are seeing now is new information coming out which doesn’t match the mainstream narrative and is creating confusion both among people without medical backgrounds and medical professionals. Questions are arising. Until now these were squashed pretty effectively but when literally “everyone” is getting sick, regardless of vaccination status, it becomes increasingly difficult to push the vaccine as the solution to a pandemic. Thankfully we do not see people dying at unprecedented rates. Some may say this is due to the vaccine, but even that is coming into question.
This brings me to the point of vaccine mandates.
There are psychological and sociological reasons why the vaccine mandates are a bad idea. I’m going to use a somewhat crass illustration. We take our dogs to the vet to get castrated. We don’t ask them. We do it for their good, or so we tell ourselves. Actually we are doing it for our convenience because we don’t want the responsibility of more dogs to care for, but none the less, we make the decision for them because we are the ones who know what is best for them. Ultimately, we are in a position to decide this on their behalf. We feed them, provide a home for them and care for them. We decide what sort of life they should have which is ultimately the kind of life we want for them. We don’t want a house full of dogs, because puppies grow up. So we implement the solution. And after a few days the dog gets over the pain and it appears that life for out pet goes on as normal.
A vaccine mandate is a little like that. It ignores the will of the people. It assumes a kind of unquestionable superiority.
This is not how people in society like to interact with one another. We have an aversion to bending unquestioningly and without options to the will of the other.
When one has the right to apply force, and the other is left without choice we understand this as victimization. It is not pleasant to be backed into a corner and threatened. It is definitely not good for the relationship.
If you have raised children you will have somewhat of an understanding of the dynamics here, but even if you do not have children, you will remember being a child. As a child, your parents tried to make decisions in your best interest. As children we accepted the decisions of our parents, sometimes reluctantly, but mostly we could see they were making choices for our good. Unless we were raised in a severely dysfunctional or abusive home, we knew they loved and cared for us and we could trust them.
The government and health authority assumed they could play the role of loving, caring parents and make decisions for us. However, the fact remains that these people are not our parents. They are our peers.
Peers consult with one another. Peers are open to alternate views. Peers respect each other’s choices. If you have a strong sense of self and healthy boundaries you quickly move on from a friend who thinks they can control you or make your decisions for you.
Dialogue and negotiation go into maintaining a trusting relationship. If you can sense there is a forgone conclusion being forced on you then dialogue begins to look like manipulation. Psychologically that is an abusive relationship. Most of us can sense this.
Many people are naively trusting. This is the majority that the government has relied on during this pandemic. These people do not spend time listening to alternative sources because they feel there is no need to do so. They trust the government. They trust the health authorities. They are afraid and need someone in charge to make decisions for them. They’ve been told that certain sources promote “misinformation” and believe that listening to them is potentially harmful. Rather than listening and determining this for themselves, they simply take the word of others and believe that these sources cannot be trusted and that they have malign motivations that are not in the best interests of the public.
I’ve listened to many sources during the pandemic and have tuned out many, but I’ve also thought to myself that if there was a grain of truth in among all the chaff then I wanted to find it. So I compared what I heard and weighed it. Fortunately I have more time than most, as a writer, to do this kind of “research.” Someone said to me, “Do you think you have some secret information?” Actually, I may have accessed information that others have not noticed, simply because I allowed myself to look.
During a pandemic people are afraid and typically we have a fight, flight or freeze response. There is really a very small percentage of the population who end up taking leadership roles or who end up seriously questioning the status quo. As a result, there is a small number of people who end up making decisions on behalf of the majority during a pandemic. Globalization and the WHO has meant we are much more on the same page than we might have been even a few decades ago. Someone I spoke to pointed out to me how all the world is saying the same thing, implying that this was evidence that the narrative was reliable. Maybe so.
I went back this week to why I have become suspicious even when all the voices are saying the same thing. I have a keen interest in parenting and so a number of years ago I wanted to know what the research showed regarding children and corporal punishment. It turns out that the research shows that mild, carefully and thoughtfully administered spanking positively affects children. I went back to the original resource to find this information, because all the news sources and articles, and there were probably hundreds, reported a different story. They all copied an article that had misinterpreted/misrepresented the actual research. If any of these journalists would have taken the time and effort to actually read the research they would not have written their articles in the way they did. That was the day I learned that we cannot simply gullibly accept what we are fed.
I’m sure you can’t have helped noticing how news sources tend to parrot one line. It is because they often have one source. Let’s say that source is the WHO. The whole world has access to what the WHO is communicating, so, understandably that will be the message that most of the world hears. And as I’ve already demonstrated, journalists can be lazy about doing research.
There is a comparatively small number of people, leaders in their own right, who don’t swallow everything. For some reason they don’t entirely trust the “step-parents” so to speak—the ones who have stepped into the parental role. We see this in about, what? 15% of the population?
Initially we were comforted by news from our government leaders and directives from health officials whom we saw as legitimately working on our behalf to mitigate a bad situation. But now, after two years, we have so much more information to fit into the picture. People are waking up to the possibility that allowing pharmaceutical companies to make decisions for us far into the future in terms of an indefinite number of boosters might not be a good thing. Clearly something is not working as advertised. And to add to the suspicion is the fact that the definition of vaccine was broadened mid-pandemic. Here is the comparison:
From 2015 to August 31, 2021 a vaccine was defined as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” and vaccination was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
The new definition for the vaccine now reads, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” while vaccination is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”
The real reason mandates are not a good idea is that they can end up creating the worst scenarios in a society. The worst scenario is when we report our neighbours and when this means we turn on one another and can no longer trust those who desire to live peacefully beside us.
I’m going to use another analogy. If your neighbour is playing loud music, at first you tolerate it. Then you decide you can no longer tolerate it and you deliberate what you will do about it. Maybe wait it out. Maybe there is a birthday party, a one time occasion and you can let it pass. But then you realize there is no party, so you go over and ask if they might turn the sound down a little. You ask in your calmest tone. We’ve done this on a number of occasions and the result has always been positive. People are accommodating because they are neighbours too. We’ll all do better if we get along.
Now if you went over and told your neighbour you didn’t like their choice of music and demanded that they stop playing it, then they would look at you like you were crazy. And you would be the crazy one because in our society people have the freedom to play whatever music they choose.
Asking people to wear masks is like turning down the music.
Social distancing is like turning down the music.
Even staying home when you’re sick, is like turing down the music.
But vaccine mandates force people to change something very basic about themselves. Vaccines will change what happens inside their body. We are not the same after taking a vaccine and that is the whole purpose of the vaccine. Medically speaking, it is the desired outcome that the vaccine will have a long term “protective” impact. While some people are ready to change their music, others are not. Some are more concerned about the impact on their body than receiving “protection.” I believe we need to respect this. If we sacrifice a few for the good of many, where do we draw the line? I do not see this as a good idea. Maintaining respect for individual music choices is very important to a harmonious society and a harmonious society is important for the world. It is probably the most important thing in the world. We do not become more harmonious by picking on one another and singling out people, turning people against others and name calling.
We live in a condo and have seen interactions between neighbours that have not always been acrimonious. We have been the go-between at times. We’ve employed various means of communication and suggestions for adaptation. One neighbour in particular was a source of agitation for others since they are recently immigrated and don’t understand the culture fully. The people beneath them complained persistently about thudding noise to the point where restraints were put on communication as the relationship became increasingly tense. One day the neighbour appeared at our door and wanted us to see what he had done in his suite. He had put a large plush carpet on the floor. This suggestion had been made at one time. He had a broad smile on his face and to see him happy to have come up with a resolution in his own time was very satisfying, after literally years.
The reason why mandates are not a good idea is mandates do not meet the ultimate end goal of good relationships that are essential in a well-adjusted society. Ask any coach what makes a good team and they will tell you cooperation. Mandates have given people justification for turning on each other. Rather than negotiating, we make “demands.” In the case of the man who installed the carpet, patient understanding brought about a positive outcome.
We’ve placed our trust in science. We’ve placed our faith in the government. And now we are here.
This morning I received the news that my uncle passed away in a care home. No, he did not die of Covid-19 or any of its variants. At 1:00 a.m. he was going to go out for a smoke, but was stopped by staff who told him it was too cold outside and he wasn’t allowed to go out. For as long as I can remember he has smoked outside without anyone telling him it was too cold.
My uncle is not one to respond mildly when provoked. An hour later, at 2:00 a.m. he was found deceased in his room. We are to believe he died of a heart attack.
In a country where we are accustomed to certain rights and privileges we don’t do well with someone removing rights we have had all of our lives. I’m now talking about the right to work, the right to travel, the right to sit in a restaurant of our choice.
Our Canadian Health Care system is in crisis and if we don’t pay attention we may ALL lose the right to medical care.
In Canada, the province of Quebec declared at the end of December that the province had “no choice” but to allow health-care staff who test positive for COVID-19 to keep working while infected. This is a direct quote from a Global News article.
Due to vaccine mandates created at the stroke of a pen, healthy, trained medical staff are not allowed to work while the health care crisis escalates. Imagine the impact of allowing up to 15% of our healthcare workers, those wrongfully dismissed, to come back to work.
There are Canadian citizens whose right to work in their field of training and medical expertise is being denied. They have been dismissed, along with numerous of other workers in government, banking, airline, hospitality and various other designations.
Take a moment to think about this and let this fact sink in. Don’t reason it away. We are allowing sick health-care staff who test positive for COVID-19 to keep working while infected.
Have we lost our minds?
The answer is, yes.
Jordan Peterson has painted a pretty clear and alarming picture of what he has witnessed happening in Canada, first hand, and warns us of the path we are headed down at break-neck speed. Read it here, National Post: Jordan Peterson: Open the damn country back up, before Canadians wreck something we can’t fix.
In some ways the Global News and National Post articles are saying the same thing: Canada is in crisis and our health-care system, along with our banking and airlines and other systems are failing due to emergency COVID-19 restrictions. The staff that could be working because they are still healthy, are not allowed to work, while the sick are mandated to work.
The two articles, however, offer opposite solutions. Peterson says, “open up the damn country.” The Opposition parties want to do more of the same…increase health measures…the things that have not been working. Peterson knows that there was a time before the current restrictions when things were working surprisingly well in Canada. There was food in stores. Airlines could be relied upon to provide travel, on time. Banks didn’t put you on hold for hours due to staff shortages. He still believes there is a possibility that we can make the necessary reversals and go back to that time.
We have long left the era of writing when journalists presented a mostly unbiased version of facts. No, along with the declaration of a pandemic came an edict that the vaccine was the only way out of the pandemic, as spoken by our own Prime Minister, and therefore it followed that this was the only message allowed to proceed from podium and pen.
I watched an interview of Elon Musk awhile ago. It was several years old and he was talking about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. When questioned as to whether he was afraid of the potential risks of AI, his response was, not as afraid as he once was. AI is a risk in as far as the players who use it for nefarious purposes and fail to see the need to set up appropriate boundaries. Upon further inquiry Musk revealed why he was less afraid now. He confessed it was because he had become more fatalistic.
Musk, who undoubtedly is one of the most knowledgeable people on earth, was not happy about what he saw coming. However, upon seeing there was little to prevent these dangerous outcomes, his only remaining option was to resign himself to acceptance of a risk he knew was inevitable. Since his words of caution to the world were not being heeded, all he was left to do was to mitigate his own fear.
There is only one thing more ominous than misinformation. It is when those who have the truth remain silent or are silenced.
Because I am an optimist, I think we still have a very small window of opportunity for Canada to turn things around. Unfortunately many of the voices we need to listen to have been silenced or have self-censored. Like Musk, they’ve stopped speaking because no one is listening. They are watching the drama unravel.
I am a woman of faith. And I believe in a God of justice. The way I see it is that the Omicron variant is showing up the injustice of firing unvaccinated health care workers. Claiming we don’t have enough health care workers, when we do and we have fired them, is unacceptable deception. The people who could help us out of our dilemma, and I’m not only talking about health care, are facing insurmountable barriers set up by our government in conjunction with our health leaders.
Peterson points out a clear life lesson: There are no risk-free paths forward.
But there paths that are more just than others.
We have an option beyond trusting science and government. We can do the right thing and trust God with the outcome. The right thing is to love our neighbour and not discriminate against them based on their personal health choices. We can place a little bit of confidence in the high vaccinations numbers we have reached, because this is aiding in reducing serious illness among the vulnerable. But to place all of our confidence in vaccination is to fail critically in other areas which could prove to be more detrimental to our society than any current disease.
In the clinic I frequent I was told that everyone there got COVID-19 and recovered. All were vaccinated according to our government mandate. This shows us that we can live with risk. We can get sick and recover and continue to work.
As I prepared to write, I noticed this article in my feed, National Post: FIRST READING: Ottawa’s 180-degree turn on mandatory vaccination. I admonish our leaders to stop and reverse mandatory vaccination requirements. To fail to do so is to show a serious lack of insight and to put our country at such a risk as we have not yet imagined.
The following is from the Global News: Opposition parties push for emergency health committee meeting amid Omicron surge.
Ontario, Alberta., B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and N.B. have cut their quarantine requirements, which followed controversial advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that quarantines could drop to five days from the previous 10-day rule.
“This is a balancing of the risks compared with the need to protect your critical infrastructure,” said Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, in a press conference on Jan. 5.
“Even with five days of quarantine, contagiousness is possible after that.”
Nothing is stopping the Omicron variant. Definitely not masks. Definitely not vaccination.
The Prime Minister of Canada is intentionally creating a crisis. Yesterday’s headline in CityNews Toronto was, Empty Canadian grocery store shelves could become larger problem.
The problem of empty grocery shelves could worsen over coming weeks due to the decision by Prime Minister Trudeau that all truck drivers entering Canada from the United States will need to present proof of vaccination to avoid a mandatory 14-day quarantine, starting January 15. This will potentially force thousands of cross-border truckers off the road. We rely on them for our food supply.
Mandatory vaccination edicts such as these are wrong for our country at this time, but, like Elon Musk, I will mitigate my fears if our government moves ahead with this disastrous plan.
I wonder if Peterson is right when he says, We are deciding, by opinion poll, to live in fear, and to become increasingly authoritarian in response to that fear.
When David met Goliath, he packed five smooth stones in his sling, but I would say he knew for certain that if the first one missed the mark, he was done. If we want to slay “Goliath” it is time to drop all but the most essential protective measures and take that one stone, called faith.
There are no risk-free paths forward. There is only one risk, or another. Pick your poison: that’s the choice life often offers. I am weary of living under the increasingly authoritarian dictates of a polity hyper-concerned with one risk, and oblivious to all others. And things are shaking around us.
Jordan B. Peterson
BC provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry reversed her promise not to implement mandatory vaccination and she needs to reverse her order again. The real problem for Canada’s Health Care system began back in October with this report as read in CTV News Vancouver:
“We’ll be implementing a new order that makes vaccination against COVID-19 a condition of employment across all health-care facilities in B.C.,” Henry said.
It’s time for a new order that puts life back to normal. The risk of serious disease is reduced to the point that we can now live with it and to prolong mandates will do more harm than good.
I walked toward the Superstore entrance to pick up a couple of bottles of sparkling grape juice for our Canadian Thanksgiving Dinner with our son and his wife. It was a clear, crisp, Sunday morning, the kind of morning when I should be in church, but that has rather gone by the wayside with COVID-19. I noticed a woman sitting on the concrete, in a slightly recessed corner. leaning against a concrete wall, wrapped in a blanket. Nearby was a loaded shopping cart with an over-sized beige dimple foam on top of luggage and other things. She looked like she was crying and I stopped to talk to her.
She really was crying as she told me she was wet and cold and miserable. She coughed and her nose was running. Her eyes were bleary. Drugs, yes.
I chatted with her, trying to understand her situation and then suggested we meet at Burger King where I called every resource I could think of to find a shelter for her. I wish I could say I found a place that would take her. One place asked if she was of aboriginal descent. No. Did that make a difference? Would they turn away a woman based on her skin color?
Her name was Amanda. She had been homeless since Spring. She told me about the jobs she’d had and about her husband who was also homeless. They were sleeping in a tent and she hadn’t seen him for a day and was worried. Her two children were staying with a relative.
When she started rolling a joint in the restaurant and began to look restless I told her I needed to go. At home I finally got through to the one shelter that had given us some hope by asking us to call back, and call back again in an hour–and then call in another hour. I hurried out to find Amanda, but she was gone. I texted her but there was no response. She was able to find her phone cord and charge her phone at the Burger King when we were together. That had lifted her spirits a little. She had no phone plan, so could only call when she was able to get connected to wifi.
It’s been exceptionally cold on the coast this past week, and I’ve wondered about people like Amanda who can freeze outside. There are emergency shelters open, but not everyone is comfortable using them. The other night our building’s fire alarm went off. I didn’t want to go out in the freezing cold, even for a few minutes till the fire brigade arrived. It turned out that a side door was ajar and there was evidence of someone lighting a fire to do drugs. They must have left in a hurry when the alarm went off.
I’m thinking about this as I read the December 31 National Post headline, Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for EI benefits, minister says.
Employment and Social Development Canada has issued a notice to employers enforcing vaccine mandates to help them fill out records of employment, a document needed to apply for EI benefits.
The department said if an employee doesn’t report to work or is suspended or terminated for refusing to comply with a vaccine mandate, then the employer should indicate that they quit, took a leave of absence or were dismissed-potentially disqualifying them from collecting EI.
As I read this I see something that is preventable. We can prevent more people from becoming homeless.
We can prevent it by not firing them, dismissing them, and refusing their final lifeline of support–Unemployment Insurance.
Our bureaucrats are creating issues. They don’t appear to care if more people end up on the streets. They don’t seem to notice that their policies are causing a crisis in our health care, as the staffing shortage they have created causes more burn-out of over-worked medical workers. We don’t know how desperate things will need to get for them to relinquish their obsession with data and begin to take a sensible and human approach. Does the health system have to collapse entirely? They can’t blame it on the unvaccinated. They can blame it on their obsession with meeting a vaccine quota. Where did the promise go of needing only 80 per cent of the population, or whatever it was, to be vaccinated? We are long past that.
I am fully vaccinated and I have vaccine regret. Since getting the vaccine my health has deteriorated to a frightful state. I’ve had heart problems, breathing problems, neurological problems with my arms and legs, constant UTI’s, vaginal bleeding, discolouration of my skin going from purple to white. And it’s getting worse by the month. Now I supposedly have fibromyalgia….inflammation in my arms is going into my hands. My husband has developed melanoma–skin cancer–since his vaccine, on the arm where he was vaccinated, but he is refusing to look at the possibility that the two may be related.
I’ve done a little research, as we do when we have health problems. It seems the spike protein is the culprit, causing inflammation. It’s not disappearing as fast as it was supposed to and it is going places it was not meant to go. Two medical professionals have, off the record, I’m sure, said to me that they are seeing a lot of this…symptoms I’ve described. So don’t be so hard on people who don’t want to get the vaccine.
All that accompanies vaccination is preventable if we allow people to choose. It’s time to realize we cannot escape the virus in its various forms but we still have a choice around vaccine injury. Or some of us do. I would like to be numbered among those who give others the option to choose, especially now that it is so apparent that the vaccinated can spread the virus too.
While the Omicron variant rages–and it’s really no worse than the common cold–we are encouraged to get our 4th booster shot. Due to the stress of so many vaccinated people now getting sick, the isolation period has been reduced to five days. All of this is beginning to look rather random.
Fully vaccinated people are getting sick of the virus in droves. Can somebody define insanity for me, please? A few people are waking up and putting two and two together, namely, we are not going to vaccinate ourselves out of this. So stop the mandates. Mandates are evidence of the type of systemic oppression which disregards the possibility that people can think for themselves. It disregards the possibility that people need to be given the option to choose an outcome that differs from what those in authority want for them. Mandates are causing untold suffering for our country.
A friend posted this quote on Facebook: Let our New Year’s resolution be this: We will be there for one another as fellow members of society in the finest sense of the word.
Lest we forget, the healthcare workers who were dismissed for not getting the vaccine were also the ones who put their lives at risk throughout the pandemic when there was little to no protection for them. Regardless of their views around the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, they deserve our compassion and support. It is unthinkably cruel that our government leaders, along with our top health leaders, have turned on them.
And if we are all honest, the vaccine is not that safe or effective. As this CTV News article, published on December 31, states, there are “520 long term care staff with the virus” in Ontario. And as we know, they are all vaccinated. And they are all infecting others.
So the rationale in keeping the unvaccinated out of the workforce is falling apart completely. Never mind the punitive action taken by our government to refuse EI to those who were fired.
I repeat: The vaccinated are spreading the virus. Vaccine mandates and firings and refusal of EI should all stop, immediately. Let’s stop this tunnel vision and turn this world back to a time when we appreciated the contributions of our helpers. By this time we have enough evidence of the destructiveness of these mandates to our relationships, our livelihoods and our communities.
It feels awkward to need to preface this article by saying, “I am fully vaccinated,” as though only this status will make me a credible person and source.
Yes, I am fully vaccinated. But I am very troubled that today only people who support the vaccine can have a platform to speak.
This has been a decade highlighting diversity, but when we see real diversity, what do we do? We reveal that we are not actually comfortable with diversity and would rather enforce conformity.
I see a lot of outrage of the vaccinated towards the unvaccinated. Think about the fact that if the vaccine truly worked as it was hoped, then we would not have this outrage, because the vaccinated would be fully protected. But the truth is we now only have “degrees” of protection. For this reason I understand the alarm of the vaccinated when they see people refusing the vaccine. The unvaccinated are making them insecure. People do strange things when they are afraid. We are seeing increasing outrage against those who do not want to take the vaccine. This is clearly also being fuelled, daily, by media.
The outrage of the unvaccinated is directed less at individuals and more towards policies, misinformation, withheld information and authoritarian-like government mandates. Their irritation began way back with the following:
at first being told masks were not necessary…and then suddenly they were
being told early on that the virus was definitely not airborne…and then it was
hearing the virus did not escape from a lab and seeing anyone questioning this narrative censored on social media…and then possibly it did
being told repeatedly that the vaccine was completely safe…until clotting, myocarditis, neurological disorders and ramped up immune reactions began to be reported
seeing six foot distancing in grocery stores, but not on planes
being told the vaccine was effective…and now witnessing the vaccinated being tested and having to wait in quarantine for their results after travelling
Any reasonable person would have questions around this. If not, then there is a sort of selective hearing of information. I’ve actually seen this a lot among the vaccinated people I know. They are following the mandate of the government, healthcare and media not to say anything that could possibly cause vaccine hesitancy.
Questions ought to be encouraged. Science encourages questions. Isn’t that at the core of science? Asking how do things work? Why? Why not? Looking for answers. Looking at the relationship between the various data.
I heard an interesting comment this week in a video, Paul Kingsnorth: why I changed sides in the vaccine wars, that made me think. Kingsnorth mentioned that we do not have the appropriate language to properly talk about the issues at hand. We are experiencing a shocking division among people, bordering on hatred–a completely inappropriate response to the common threat we all face.
If we don’t have the language, then let’s find it. Let’s work at this because it is too important not to.
Kingston states that in the past societies have been unified around religion and following that, the pursuit of progress, but today we are lack a common unifying societal value and so government sees the opportunity for a more top-down, totalitarian approach. I thought this was a “conspiracy theory.” Now I am watching it unfold. From various sources I have heard incredulity over the ease with which people relinquish their privacy of information. Kingston says we are slipping into a China-like surveillance and social credit system with passports and it does not take too much of an imagination to see this could in fact be happening.
I think the conversation we need to have involves a Higher Power, otherwise we may find ourselves subject to less than altruistic motives both within and without. The Bible warns us against hatred of our neighbour, equating hatred with murder. We are admonished to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and to “love one another fervently, out of a pure heart.” This applies both to vaccinated and unvaccinated.
We can choose our path forward. Let’s choose the path of peace.
In Canada we set aside November 11 as Remembrance Day. Flags are lowered and there are ceremonies across the country honouring veterans, along with a minute of silence at 11:00 a.m. This year I was deeply moved as I read two articles posted on Facebook by relatives of veterans. One relates to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in the First World War. The other is about the D-Day Battle at Normandy, in World War II. Both were turning points.
It struck me that many of the men on the beaches of Normandy only had field experience and, as was reported, “were already in the boats when they learned it was no exercise” that awaited them. Only four of the eleven member company of Abe Goertzen (below) returned.
As we commemorate Remembrance Day I think of those who gave their lives and the loved ones they left behind. I think of the ones who returned and try to comprehend what soldiers endured. I know I will never fully understand.
In an article by Charlotte Cuthbertson, in the Epoch Times, entitled, After War, the Journey Home Takes a Lifetime, we read that the community has to share responsibility for what happened in a war. Psychotherapist Ed Tick, who has worked with veterans for 45 years, puts it this way, “You acted in my name, I paid the bills, I sent you. You didn’t do this on your own. And it wasn’t your decision, you were doing it representing me and our country, and you thought you were protecting me. So I take responsibility for you. And for whatever you did, and I’ll carry it with you, and I’ll help you come home.”
As a community we often don’t even begin to know how to help veterans return home. This became very clear to my husband and me some years ago when we discovered a veteran deceased in his room on Remembrance Day. He lived in the townhouse complex we managed. We were alerted to something being wrong when the tenant beneath him called to tell us the music had been on all night in the suite above him. The tenant seemed distressed earlier in the week and related some of his wartime experience in the Korean War to my husband. We were deeply concerned, but didn’t know what to do beyond offering compassion and lending a listening ear.
The Epoch Times article outlines six therapeutic steps to recovery from wartime trauma and it is worth the read. It points out that moral injury is the most difficult to process. From the article, “Moral injury is defined as a wound to the soul caused by participation in events that violate one’s deeply held sense of right and wrong.” According to Tick, “Even witnessing morally questionable acts will cause moral injury….Moral injury is at the heart of PTSD.”
The article states, Moral injury symptoms include profound shame, guilt, betrayal, grief, and alienation.
In the words of Dr. Tick, “We really have to get our warriors in service and our veterans afterward to feel safe and secure so they can deeply explore their own conscience and their own value system and how they feel about what they did. And then give them opportunities for restoring and recovering those more esoteric moral dimensions of their being.” Tick relates the moving story of healing that happens when he takes vets of the Viet Nahm war back to Viet Nahm where they meet their fellow “warriors.”
What stood out for me was the view that veterans do not become normal citizens but are instead warriors. “Traditional cultures didn’t call somebody a warrior until they could carry the experience without traumatic breakdown. Because warriors are supposed to become community elders and leaders and teachers after service,” states Tick.
I recently heard Jordan Peterson allude to the necessity of a higher “spiritual” experience in the context of recovering from addiction. This revelation draws a person out of the depths to a higher plane of experience. I see a similarity of experience here as veterans view themselves as unique contributors to society.
As I contemplated moral injury, I was reminded of the words of Jordan Peterson, in Beyond Order, Twelve More Rules for Life, where he stresses the importance of not doing anything that would make you “contemptuous of yourself” or that makes you “weak and ashamed.” In other words, “Don’t do anything that violates your conscience.”
Wartime causes men to violate their conscience. I venture to say war is brought about by those who violate their consciences and do unconscionable things. When there is an aggressor there is correspondingly the defender.
While we are privileged to live in a society where we are not compelled to violate our conscience, we want to value this freedom and guard our hearts and minds to avoid moral injury and its devastation. There is an old adage, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Read the article for more insights. As the title states, After War, the Journey Home Takes a Lifetime.