This blog is about 10 printed pages. It will take about a half hour to read....
(Started on Father’s Day, this blog is dedicated to my father and the mother’s, father’s, brothers and sisters and friends of his generation)
The day before Father’s Day in 2011, I opened my back door after doing some gardening. In it was one of those large, yellow, officious “notices”. “Notice of Visit- Census 2011,” it loudly reads before you come to this threatening line: “... It is a legal requirement that every household complete a census questionnaire ...”.
This I would have complied with before 2003. However, I trust that the citizens of Canada will start to ponder why I continue my singular “Censless Revolution”. If you do struggle back through the emails/(blogs posted below), you will find one that makes a record of my response to that University student. She was the first deliverer of this illegal farce to my door. Her warning was that my refusal to accept “The Census” could get me arrested or fined “$1,000”.
I refused to cooperate. Yes, I will continue to refuse to because the day after this officious notice’s delivery was made was “Father’s Day” in Canada.
I have a picture of my Father. In 1942, he was handsome, dressed in the Canadian Army’s training uniform. He was disappointed to be rejected as a foot soldier because of his small stature and flat feet. Now 94, he talks eloquently.
He has finally finished reading my tome. He is a man whom I was momentarily disowned from. This was because I refused to buy into my parental family’s religious vigours. We finally talk with respect again. He has read the book. “It is the truth,” he says in his soft voice over the phone. He has his own story about corrupted justice but he would not have voted for the Conservatives on May 2, 2011, if he had read my book first.
He talks as rationally as I heard Ben Ferencz, now a reportedly 92-year old man, talking. Ferencz survived that war. He became an American soldier who collected evidence for the criminal war trials at Nuremberg. A post-Canadian-election blog of mine makes a record of Ferencz’s commentary on America’s assassination of Osama Bin Laden. My father’s affirmation that he now knows that I am right in my own journey is really more significant to me than any other book reviewer’s appraisal. After all, my own father has accepted that the reasons why he put on the 1942 uniform were not really confirmed as a moral prerequisite in that era. It was not until the atrocities in Europe were revealed in the Nuremberg trials that the world awoke to the real significance of men and women who died before 1945.
Others seem to have forgotten many things by 2011, despite what my father and mother’s generation witnessed. Some will be offended by my words. I eventually label the highest of Canadian “judges” as “vermin” in this essay. Therefore, I am going to keep pounding these thoughts back into the heads of many who should know better because of what their parents survived. I am also going to start to challenge the upcoming generations as to what really responsible behaviour entails in 2011.
First, the trials at Nuremberg jailed German “judges”. These were grand and elevated lawyers in Germany. By 1945, these elevated men had made the new laws of the partisan something that could overrule all rules of human decency. By 1948, Canada, and 47 other nations, had signed onto international law. That law promised us that such abominations would never be allowed to happen again (visit my “About Law” page at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca to find relevant references to that law).
This concept of what justice entailed was to be compelled by what?
It was to be compelled by the official recognition that true democracy is not about “the majority rules!”. If “majority rule” was the prevailing rule of democracy, then the majority’s fervour, for seeing Jews annihilated and the majority’s indifference to the disappearance of dissidents who then dared to oppose these inhumanities, would have been lawful before 1948.
However, after, 1948, the rule of law in democracies, or at least in 48 nations claiming to be conscientious “democracies”, was that never again would the rights of individual citizens be trampled because the “majority” did not really care. Indifference was to be no excuse.
So, when some say that I should temper my pen my response is made with stern temper. My father trained under the hail of machine gun fire, prepared to die. He prepared to die as he was told that never again should the freedom of any citizen be jeopardized by those who gained control, as had happened in Germany.
I repeat what I have said in court documents, my book and in previous blogs. First, Hitler gained power by coalitions formed by different political associations. Partisans of different stripes came together. They declared that they were what was best for “all citizens”. Then, through astute placement of their partisan associates into positions of governance, a systematic exclusion of freed voice began. We seem wont to forget that this was all enforced by making certain that friends of the partisan were in positions of justice and policing.
I invite you to visit the “About Don” button at the http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page. There you will learn of circumstances of personal discovery that lead me to know this.
If my father’s generation had the courage to stand against the hail of bullets and bombs unleashed by empowered partisans, then, yes, I will dare to machine gun my words to end the harshly illegal abuse of powers gained via our votes. Even in nations called Canada and America.
The lesson from that era was that, never again, would “majority rule” become an excuse to diminish the rights of any part of our citizenry while partisans gained. More importantly, indifference by any citizen or collective of “majority citizenry” would never be an excuse for the partisan to take control of institutions of governance. Most importantly, as that law of 1948 required, the citizens would have their rights protected by completely impartial courts, freed of discriminating behaviours of any kind
It becomes sickening, to me, how many times I must write, and write again, these reminders. Racism prevailed after 1948, even into that nation that tries to sell itself as “the epitome of democracy”, the United States of America. It was not until the race riots of the 1960’s that the “majority” view of the racist Southern States, allowed by their complicit cousins to the north, fell. Sexual discrimination, against women and gays, continues today. And, in good old America especially, the right to courts that are freed of religious intolerance is blatantly violated. America’s court rooms violate the rights of those who might dare to say that they do not believe that there is a god. We see daily images of America’s court rooms where the words, “In God We Trust”, are emblazoned onto their walls.
Yes, Nazism did prevail after 1948. How and why? Because lawyers, even some who returned from the bloodied soils of Europe, told the rest of us that only they know what the word “justice” means. They, and their partisan friends, quickly overwhelmed the lessons to 1945 with a rush to create new laws that would protect their old traditions.
We have fallen silent to this stark reality.
We would not operate on our own daughters and sons in the pretence that we know how to heal them. We need trained physicians to deal with issues of health.
We would not build our own bridges without knowing what the math would be to make the bridge safe. We assign that duty to highly trained engineers.
However, if you or I witness a death by beating by even drunken mobs, we know what justice is. It is not another crowd taking the law into their own hands and arbitrarily lynching those implicated, even in videos. We know that to do so based on what is seen “in the moment” might sweep the individual, who put up a hand to stop the blows and then was pushed to fall on the already bloodied victim, into what might seem to be, on initial impression, participatory violence.
We also know that it is not a jury of 12 lawyers that should then sort out the whole bevy of facts to gain judgement from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We know, therefore, that we do not need “lawyers” to engineer what the facts are and what the truth, therefore, becomes. They are contracted only to do the work we could do to bring forth the facts and the truth so that principled justice prevails.
Worse, we have the lessons from Nuremberg as to the ramifications when we abdicate the principles of justice to those who illustrate, again and again, that they have no higher principle that frees them from their promotion and protection of their personal politics. Why do we allow this? Why do we subvert our rights, despite the lessons of Nuremberg, to people who cannot even prove to us that they have no friends in high places, who have gained power via our vote and who then pass laws to the gain of the partisan while the citizens’ rights decline?
I invite you to visit http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca and the “About Don” button to a summary of my personal testament that this is already the case in Canada. I dare to say that it is as bad in good old America. There, do not forget, a man named Bush became “president” because the State of Florida had good Republican judges ruling on the state of the vote in that sad state in 2000. However, the deeper consequences of our collective silence to all of this can be illustrated in 2011 by an iconic image which some Canadians have idolized.
On June 3, 2011, there was much ado made about Brigitte DePape. The now famous picture of that Canadian Parliamentary Page gained fame. She stood in the presence of the “democratically” esteemed. She held up her handmade “Stop Harper” sign. She later said that she did so because she was concerned that Mr. Harper now has control in a nation where less than 1 in 4 of its voters registered a vote for him.
DePape should think more about the real role of democracy. She and others should start to remember that, as of 1948, democracy was never again to be about “majority rules!”, not even if a real “majority vote” was achieved. After all, such idiocy could lead to Christians removing the rights of Jews or Islamists or vice versa. After all, such idiocy could lead to the racism and oppression that continue in Canada against First Nation people.
This is enabled, why?
One media report noted that she held her sign while standing behind “Judges” from Canada’s Supreme Court during that “parliamentary-opening throne speech”. More citizens might want to start to focus in on this part of that picture. There has been too much focus on DePape’s stop sign. There is not enough said about the vermin in highest positions of Canadian courts.
DePape stood behind a bunch of promoted partisan privileged who dress in regal robes lined with ermine. So, yes, I dare to say that it is this part of that iconic image of June 3 that should be amplified. The Vermin in Ermine must be dealt with if Canada’s, or any other, “democracy” is expected to regain any credibility.
Why?
The irony is again in DePape’s singular brave but collectively immature, when it comes to democracy, suggestion as to why she did this. She said, to the media, that she hoped Canadians would rise to mimic what those Arabs are doing in places like Libya and Tunisia and Syria and Egypt in 2011.
DePape et al should remember this iconic image from Libya.
Murderous warfare began again in Libya in 2011 because, why? Because the citizens awakened to the fact that 1200 of them had been taken out into a prison yard and machine gunned to death because they dared to ask for blankets. Where did the protests begin? Outside a court house where first only 5 more unarmed were then massacred. Was it one collective association that began these protests? No, it was a freely associating collection of people of all tribal stripes who came together to say that what their “leaders” were doing was wrong. Why did this escalate? Because “policing officials”, sworn loyal to the rulers, not to the rules of human decency, turned their guns on the mourners on the next day to murder over 30 more unarmed citizens.
What are the rules of human decency that we agreed to by 1948? I invite you to visit the “About the Law” button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca, again.
Again, I dare to challenge that our media are a main problem. Their portrayal of Canada’s Supreme Court as an “esteemed” institution, an “institution of justice”, gives our “institution of justice” the credibility that many of us know that it does not deserve.
Oh, I know. In the May 30 edition of Maclean’s magazine, esteemed columnist Paul Wells will write an article. He will report that Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper knows that two Liberally appointed “judges” of the Supremest Court of Fools are resigning. Wells will insist that what he observes in one Supremest of Courts hearing will, therefore, mean that “... the power to appoint Judges doesn’t mean Harper will get what he wants...”.
Fools who sit in one court room to draw conclusions make the rest of trusting Canadians into fools with this kind of idiotic propaganda. I suggest that perhaps Mr. Wells might want to travel through more Canadian courts as I have. And, yes, Mr. Wells might want to actually read some of the laws as I note I have at my “About the Law” button at my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page.
Wells sat in a court room where the “judges” from the supremest of fools, when it comes to 1948, sit. Wells marvelled. The case he chose to listen to was about “Insite”. “Insite”? It is that place in “drug-crazed” British Columbia where druggies can come in to shoot up. They are supposed to be able to do so free from fear of arrest. There is much evidence and argument made in two “lower courts” already that there is some success in this program. Support is given as the druggies try to deal with their addiction problems.
This is not a good concept in the world of Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty (elected Conservative lawyers, who just might be appointed as “judges” one day, by the by!) and Stephen Harper. Helping the addict out of their world of addiction is a completely foreign concept to the Conservative agenda of “getting tough on crime”.
However, the deeper problem comes down to this. It is one of illegal behaviour entrenched into our courts AND of stupid journalists carrying stupidity even further.
Wells makes grand oratory on the back and forth exchanges that he heard between esteemed lawyers and steamy judges in robes. He does hint at the Liberal or Conservative appointments of these supremest of fools. After all, despite the lessons from Germany, the political lawyer and judges will tell us that only they know what “justice” is. Oh, you will have to wait for why I sneer so, and why I sneer at Statistics Canada’s abuse by “these politicals” even more deeply.
Read my book, or the previous emails or blogs that follow below. Yes, Mr. Wells. I have been a citizen in courts who can testify how stupid your respectful opinion is when we examine reality.
1982. “Courtish” hearings over my firing from a government position. I am eventually told that a Progressive Conservative aligned lawyer named Campbell has sat on a tribunal discussion about my firing by the good Conservatives. I have not been forced to “become a lawyer” in 1982. Still, I know that this is completely wrong. After all, 1982 is the year when we are promised justice that is truly “just”.
In 1982, I know that there is something wrong about a “Conservative” implicated “judge” being the only man on the “tribunal” who files a dissenting opinion. This is political interference in a “court”. This is a room that is not to carry the implication that the Conservatives in government at the time, who had fired me, would have influence in any related process of justice for me.
Unlike engineers, who simply do the math or doctors, who are made accountable to how they slice any among us, partisan lawyers have engineered the math of what “justice” will equal. The idiocy of this is perpetrated by, yes, I abuse “journalists” in all of this, “stupidity in journalism”.
Nearly three decades after my lessons gained from a 1982 government-firing (I won my job back, by the by), Paul Wells writes grand oratory making this record. He watches a Conservative-Harper appointed “judge”, ironically named Thomas Cromwell. Wells gushes that Cromwell tells Harper’s appointed lawyers that there is no need for the power to arrest people using Insite. This is because Cromwell says that “If the police wanted to arrest people for possession, they could simply do it outside (Insite) on their way to the door.”
Wells cheers this wrongly, and stupidly, on two counts.
The first is a minor glitch from a pubescent journalist, when it comes to how our courts function. In 1982, I watched and listened to Conservative-implicated Campbell make small challenges to opposing lawyers to my case. Indeed, my book then records a Conservative-implicated judge named Helen Pierce. She made grand , laudatory oratory of her own after I had made a presentation to her in June 2003. She thanked me for a most excellent presentation that I made before her on a June 20, 2003 civil court day where I was my own lawyer.
I did not know that she was a paid loyalist. She appeared in a court room where the application for justice was via my documents naming Conservatives, the likes of Mike Harris and Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement and their partisan party. Thanking me for my presentation to her tainted court room on June 20, 2003, she then returned barely a week later with a written, abusive and demeaning judgement. She essentially said that she did not care about the facts of my case or the soundness of my presentation. I was a stupid citizen. She lectured me because, she declared, even the Supreme Court recognized that, once politicians were in power, “policy is the prerogative of the government”. On that day, to her, “the government” was not the citizenry of Ontario. It was “the Conservative” faction.
And Ms. Pierce’s piercing eyes and poisoned pen hid the fact that she had paid money into a partisan faction that was trying to recruit Conservative Mike Harris as Canada’s next Prime Minister under the Conservative Alliance. Harris’ name was on my documents that she claimed were made irrelevant by the supremest stupidity from our highest courts. She had been appointed barely a year before by Ernie Eves, Harris’ replacement Conservative Premier. Eves name and the name of the Conservative Party, that had a hand in promoting her, was on those documents that she then dismissed.
As judges in Germany said to the citizenry, the Canadian citizen had better bow to the abuses that “the government” would apply to their rights or face the consequences? If you think that these partisan bastards do not abuse our institutions of “justice” as the Nazis did, I invite you to visit my personal testaments and summarized details outlining how they do. Go to the “About Don” button at http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca.
Yes, Mr. Wells. You may have made a minor error in thinking that what a judge says during deliberations means something. It means nothing as to what the verdict will be. Indeed, a May 17 British Columbia’s The Province report of the same case that Wells watched noted that no verdict would be coming from this Supremest Court of Fools of Nine until “later this year” or even not until 2012. Therefore, if this “Court” is so venerable and aligned on all things as Mr. Wells suggests in his column that they are, why does it take nine snoring “judges” so long to render a simple decision on whether or not this “Insite” site should be allowed to keep its doors open?
This bureaucracy of injustice exists because these buggers have made our courts into institutions of political deliberations. However, Mr. Wells makes a graver error with his commentary and, hence, perpetuates the illegal into our courts with his idiocy. The grave error with Mr. Wells et al “experts” is this. And, yes, I dare to say, again, “Visit my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web site and the “About the Law” button,” to understand why I now say this.
Mr. Wells completely misses the significance behind the sacrifices made by my father’s generation. It, therefore, becomes irrelevant what Mr. Wells thinks about judges appointed by big-time politicians. What Mr. Wells glosses over is that, by 1948, this practice of partisans appointing their own into our court rooms was to be completely disallowed. Visit my “About the Law” page at my TakeBackDemocracy.ca site to read the relevant sections of that international law. Discrimination of any kind was to be disallowed after 1948. In “democracies” of the UN.
No discrimination to be allowed.
Like the all white juries who hung or condemned black men, one made famous by Bob Dylan ( ever listened to his song, Hurricane?).
Like the Irish Catholic facing judgement from Protestants arbitrarily assassinating the Catholic because the Catholic had supposedly threatened the Protestant.
Like the homosexual, tied to fence posts in “judgement”.
Like the dissident of Germany or Russia or Libya or China or North Korea, who would not align with the partisan in power.
Like the atheist in the United States of America who is told to stand in court rooms where signs are posted “In God We Trust”.
There was NOT to even be a hint that politicians, even of the religious rites rightists, had gained influence into our courts so that the mere suggestion of partisan politics would arise.
Wells? His article makes a loud record about Harper’s blatant intentions and ability to stack the deck in Canada. After all, Harper has a “majority”, of one voter for him for every other four voting Canadians.
The vote and our courts? Here is why I will stand up to more abuse of powers gained when it comes to “statistics” by 2011. We need statistics to rule our nations? What about the statistics already analysed to death and then ignored in Canada?
In December 2004, I submitted my court-based complaints to Canada’s esteemed “Supreme Court”. Base principles of justice say that justice cannot be denied any citizen. By December 2004, I had added the name of prominent Liberals and the Liberal party to my application. As the book records, my application was returned by a “court clerk”. Why? It was not that my arguments were not considered valid. I had refused to submit to the New Laws of lawyers saying that I must submit, in specified binder types with typing only on the left side (so that right handed judges can scribble more easily on the right, I suppose).
I dared to warn that the persons assigning these new conditions violated the right of the simple citizen who was illiterate. I refused to comply “to the new rules” knowing full well that they had been made to the favour of partisan-implicated lawyers.
Sure enough, by January 2005, the copies I had sent, making a record of how all of this abuse of our courts could end, was returned by a “court clerk”. I looked up the lawyer’s name on Elections Canada data. He was a donor to the Liberal Party. This was a political party prominently displayed on my typed documents.
So, by 2004, I had noted this to these arrogant fools.
Stats Canada collected your and my data in the 1990’s. In a “woe is our electoral process!” study based on this data, this esteemed organization of statisticians noted that 94% of Canadians refuse to belong to or to donate to any partisan group. Meanwhile, I had uncovered documentation. The lawyers entrenched into our courts, who repetitively blocked my applications for justice, were 99% implicated by memberships or donations into the Conservative or Liberal and, of a lesser frequency, to the New Democrats.
So, Mr. Wells et al, where are the 96% of non-partisan judges into our courts? The lessons from 1945 told us that the appointment of partisans into our courts by partisans was something the citizen should not even have to contemplate. What made those conditions of the 1948 law very irrelevant?
It was partisan appointed judges into our courts in more “democracies” than just Canada.
Worse, where are the 96% of our elected representatives who show that they are independent thinkers, elected to truly represent the will of the majority of Canadians?
Aw, no, Ms. DePape and all. It is not about “only 1 in 4!” voted for Harper. It is that our places of elected representation are dominated by a population of only 6%, according to Statistics Canada. So, you are damned right that I refuse to bow to the threatening orders in my door that order me to submit to the “latest law” passed by partisans while the real representation of 94% of the population is ignored.
I do not care if others align with me in this. I refuse to align with others through officious “associations” that these partisans make “new laws” for. We have allowed corrupted courts to force us into the loss of the legal principle that no individual’s rights would be diminished if they chose not to align themselves with anyone. If we are to gain our rights back to voice and vote, we will start to think about those Arabs whom DePape urged us to mimic.
Our lawyers, and, hence, “judges”, have aligned. They now control our courts? They now create rules of “Majority Rules!” where they can define their “majority” to be based on one vote out of every four while all others were not for them? And, when fewer than 40% of Americans turn out for their federal elections, we can be certain that America’s situation is no better.
All of this is protected by bureaucratic courts ruled by partisans. All of this, sadly, increases the wealth of those lawyers.
Some will say that I show total disrespect by daring to call the Supremest of “Judges” “vermin”. I dare to challenge that we need to deal with the signals in the daily living that surrounds us.
And, yes, what I saw on Canada’s CTV as I waited in a bus station on the day after father’s day cemented my resolve to refuse to comply with those who ignore the Statistics that our taxes have already paid for. The ramifications, of what also happens when our institutions of “democracy” lose all credibility, ironically comes from that city of Vancouver where “Insite” is located.
The talk of the nation is still about the violence and destruction that went on in that fair city on the last night of the National Hockey League season. Vancouver’s Canucks lose. Downtown businesses lose windows and merchandise in the rioting that ensues. The CTV “analysts” are astounded that it is not “anarchists” as the Vancouver cops first implied. Drunken teens, mostly males, burned cars, looted and beat up anyone who tried to stop them.
Seventeen year old kids are suddenly stepping forward to apologize.
I am not one of those prohibition nut bars. Yes, I chose not to do drugs, any, as my lifestyle. However, I am a person who demands accountability in all places where responsibility lays.
Read my “hockey violence” blog. Tell me why the NHL executives are not apologizing for failing to set a standard that meets the “majority rules” standard that we are all equals and that sport is for the sake of sport that sets an example to young fans. Tell me why a league that fails to control the violence on ice is not made accountable for people fighting? With skates and hockey equipment off and then doing the same thing on our streets, the same people would be arrested for assault if not an intent to kill in some of the more violent episodes.
Tell me why the booze companies, making millions off of these “sporting events”, are not paying for the ramifications of spin-off realities like this. They sell their product, not calling it the drug that it is. They sell it in advertising to our modern teens, The advertisements portray their products as harmless social agents that will have the young males much fun. Best of all, the ads assure young males, the main target audience, that “their beer” or liquor product will get them laid by the most gorgeous women on the planet.
Read my book and my discoveries of booze companies and their executive officials paying big bucks into the same partisan pockets as the lawyers and cops do.
Yes, the public should express anger at so called “anarchists” who show up in the violence with masks over their faces. However, they should express greater dismay at the fact that families of kids in Vancouver, who were implicated in the violence and rioting, faced anonymous phone calls. These were so threatening against one family, said CTV reporters, that the family was forced to vacate their premises.
This is an ominous suggestion as to the depth of the lack of faith in our institutions of justice. We wonder why?
After CTV reporters discuss the partisan shenanigans that go on with a postal strike in Canada in the same week, another report is had. Another expert from Europe, with a deep English accent, appears. He warns that the European Union must tread carefully. Greece (discussed in a blog below/previous email) needs another big bailout or it will need to declare bankruptcy. The “expert” man decries that the world is having to deal with this because of the dishonesty in the banking and credit industry. All of these shenanigans started to roll the world into an economic crisis in 2008.
Ah yes. My primary target in my civil court applications of 2003? Big banks that were not willing to protect and promote honesty in business. They were willing to eagerly pay money into the pockets of big partisans. They paid only to those partisans, like Clement and Flaherty, who said that business in our nations can do no wrong, no matter how dishonest the big bank or big politician may become.
Unions and corporations have their place in our social structures. It is not, however, in the back pockets of politicians who take away the rights of citizens. This fails the principles of a law that protects the honest citizen over the illegal shenanigans of union-sponsored or corporate-sponsored partisans.
We do not need the shadow of Communist Russia controlling our courts and our arresting institutions, because big unionists declared that only they knew what was good for the people. Nor do we need the shadow of big politicians who align with big business people, as did the Nazi from whence another oppressive version of “socialism” arises.
We do need a media that thinks on the same terms as did 12,000 citizens in Vancouver, but more responsibly.
It is all very well and good to applaud the great potential of our social media in “doing good”. After all, it is evidently very easy to motivate 12 thousand people to clean up the broken glass on downtown Vancouver streets.
The question arises when the citizenry will awaken to use this modern instrument of communication to deal with the deeper problems that exist in our society. The depth of decay that is a threat to legitimate democracy is clear. The record in this nation is of repetitive conduct, by politicians and our “legal profession”, that is illegal and insensitive to the debased history of 1945. This is senseless conduct that is insensitive to the memory of my father’s generation.
Effective change will come only when, as DePape hoped for, peaceful civil disobedience begins. Such disobedience that does not do as the Libyans started to first deal with, corrupted institutions of justice, simply allows those who are loyal to the politician to deny the legal principles and, hence, their legal obligations that came out of 1945.
We can allow what seems like the impossible to change to overwhelm us until desperation forces change via destructive means. Or we can use all of our tools of democracy as they were intended.
Democracy was and is the tool for making real change peacefully and in recognition of the principle that “majority rule” is not always a good thing. But that responsible activism is.
Both Wells and DePape, along with the rest of “responsible citizenry”, need to wake up to the depth of our problems because of corrupted courts. I do dare to declare that the first step is refusing to succumb to things like a senseless census.
So, yes, expect one last blog/email from my JustBusinessTheBook.com site that explains why starting a Censless Revolution and refusing to send taxes to support entrenched criminals are merely the simplest signals of singular protest that we can send.
My nation, however, must awaken to the challenge of standing outside courts of Canada, if it becomes necessary. If those who have corrupted our institutions of democracy, like Ghadafi and Mubarek, refuse to leave their privileged palaces of positions gained then, yes, we will need that courage.
Watch for how I say we can indeed change things in the next week or so because, yes, we do have the power to change all of this, if we stand tall, as individuals who awaken to our collective responsibilities.
My father’s generation was forced to stand to watch many fall before 1945, before the promise of democracy was legally recognized. We need not the courage to stand against bullets but only if we start to act responsibly to remove the illegally acting. Those who turned our institutions of democracy into theirs, in protection of their traditions, not the legal promise of democracy to each and everyone, must be stood against.
My question remains, who among you has courage that demands more than holding up a simple stop sign that is symbolic only until the depth of this problem is really removed from all facets of our democratic institutions? Or do we wait for more broken glass to mobilize “12 thousand” who sweep the rest of the problem under the rug?
See you next week. At TakeBackDemocracy.ca, especially, where the recommendations for an avenue to peace filled, but stern, change will appear.
No comments:
Post a Comment