Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have a taste for torching history
Disclosure: Mattea Merta currently works as the Stakeholder Relations and Social Media Coordinator for Conservative MP Brad Trost. This article does not express the views of any office or organization. The views expressed are the authors alone.”
It’s evident that Trudeau and his administration has a bone to pick with history, and their desire to manipulate history should concern every individual, regardless of political ideology.
Back in 2016, when the Liberals took control of the House of Commons, their first “Big Brother” act as an administration was to contact tech giant Google and request an intense purging of the internet.
What could possibly pose such a threat to an administration that painted itself as being all sunny-ways ooey-gooey with love and tolerance for all? Apparently, it was the impacts and initiatives that the Stephen Harper administration had spearheaded.
It would appear as though the very name Stephen Harper inspired fear in Trudeau. So, in order to save the general public the same pain that he was living through (the successes that the Harper administration produced), Trudeau began to undo his legacy.
What we witnessed in 2016 was not the only time the Liberals tried to strike significant portions of our history from memory.
It was only last month that Canadian Member of Parliament, Michael Cooper of St. Albert – Edmonton held a seat on the Justice Committee when the committee was tasked to study online hate.
Consequently, MP Cooper ended up receiving attack
What was not surprising was the outcry of disgust from the other parties, it was the manner in which his own party treated the issue of Cooper’s statement.
Because Cooper’s view took one step “too far” beyond the boundaries of comfort within the caucus room, he was not only removed by his party leader from the Justice Committee, but his party also agreed with the Liberals lead committee’s decision to completely strike MP Cooper’s words from the Parliamentary record—therefore, it was effectively erased from Canadian history.
As a young Canadian, I don’t want there to be fewer members of parliament sharing their viewpoints within the halls of my government, I want more of them!
What happened to MP Cooper is a prime example of what can happen when the overheated, politically correct feelings of some collide with the diverse viewpoints of those they disagree with.
This removal and manipulation of history is not only happening within the halls of government but on college campuses and in public spaces within our society. In the case of MP Michael Cooper, history was literally rewritten and his voice was forcibly silenced by those inside and outside his party.
Now, I do not know Mr. Cooper personally, aside from meeting him on a few occasions on Parliament Hill. I cannot speak to his internal character, but I can speak to his very calculated decisions based upon his dedication to the position he holds within the House of Commons and what those who are closest to him suggest.
Although there is no personal connection to Mr. Cooper, that does not mean I do not have a moral obligation to stand up for a right that he clearly possesses (to speak directly and out of a position of authority), as well as an obligation to stand up for the uncomfortable things that happen to be recorded for future generations to learn from.
If his right to freely speak and dare I say, even offend, is under threat not only as a Canadian citizen but as an elected official, then my rights to stand up and speak out are too.
The disgust displayed by the media and special interest groups that MP Cooper was able to voice his opinion as a legislator reveals something telling about what we are seeing from those holding offices that are supposed to represent us.
Are any of our representatives speaking based upon what they truly believe? Or, are they self-censoring in order to keep themselves from receiving similar treatment as Mr. Cooper experienced?
An individual who is willing to speak—and is willing to take on the backlash for what he or she believes—is an individual whom I believe is worthy of their positions of authority.
Men and women who “stirred the pot” and made uncomfortable statements and decisions have contributed to the progression of society. To limit or erase moments of our history will only stifle the future from being stronger than we are at present.
History used to be passed down throughout the ages through verbal communication and written words—yes, through books, books made of paper pages you had to turn, not screens you swipe.
In our present age, we are seeing less and less verbal dialogue (especially between the generations) and more delivery of ideas via social media platforms, so what are we missing out on? I believe we’re the voices of our elders and the knowledge that they possess. Think of it, their lives are enriched with opportunity and experiences that have had time to steep.
Above all of this, however, is the collective effort by those in various spheres to censor and prohibit the transfer of ideas and to teach what is and isn’t acceptable with the excuse that “it’s the current year.”
Censored speech is no longer free speech and the ideas that become most prevalent, particularly online, will be the ones that go on to foster a history filled with very little progression and one big halt sign to wisdom.
As time has progressed, we have seen the benefits of youth learning from the collective wisdom of those who have gone before them, running farther based upon that wisdom transferred to them to build better programs, more effective organizations and construct nations where freedoms are realized by all people.
Look at the life of William Wilberforce, the Member of Parliament in Great Britain who fought the slave trade. He was inspired by his mentor, a man who worked on a slave ship whom he placed himself under to learn, develop and reach a nation.
Because Wilberforce chose to learn from someone who had lived more life than he, an entire movement was birthed and countless lives were saved. This is one area that I am concerned with some in my generation. We seek to be heard but do we really listen? And if we do listen, are we listening to those within our own silos? What happens if a generation completely rejects what previous generations have learned?
I can tell you one thing for certain, we don’t progress, we regress. And if there was ever a word that millennials despise, it’s regression, yet, we are embracing it because it’s presented to us under the disguise of progression. How could we be so accepting of these false ideas? Because we don’t understand where others have come from and what has happened in our family’s, country’s and world’s history.
Historical figures like Sir John A. Macdonald depicted in the form of a statue were not erected to oppress us but to serve us. They remind us of what was so that we can leap off their successes and failures and run a better race based on the knowledge they garnered, as well as learn from their mistakes. That’s part of the reason removing figures from public viewing is a disservice to society, to those who seek to deconstruct history and those who seek to preserve it.
While there are minorities within society that have been given a microphone to express their disgust with historical figures being represented, others have been silenced because they desire to keep them alive.
I know that in removing these lessons in the form of statues from our public square in order to appease a few delivers a grave injustice to the whole of society.
More than ever, we need history. We need history to be taught and shared based upon the facts not the feelings and biases of those who see all that has come before us as a tether that holds us back, but as a propeller that can help us steer a brighter path into the future.
We’re seeing a desire to replace that which is tried and true with utopian measures that lead to oppression and less freedom. This doesn’t just affect one generation but many and their ability to continue along the path of progress.
The desire to replace our history with what we see as acceptable or politically correct behaviour will provide future generations with ideals instead of solutions.
Stripping controversial moments and their outcomes from the books, as in the case of MP Michael Cooper, will lead our future leaders to believe that they can’t work through differing viewpoints and come to points of positive resolution as past generations once did.
History serves as a precautionary measure in which we are able to transfer knowledge and wisdom onto the next generation in hopes that our mistakes are not made again.
When individuals choose to learn from history, we start to see how better practices can be implemented in our lives. When we choose to learn from others lived experiences over current social whims, we contribute to a means of living that is superior to what has been.
History shows us what
Let’s learn from those who have gone before us, the good and the bad, the stupidity and the honourable, and let’s give to the next generation a way to do more good than we did. And when you see the lessons history presents are under threat—stand up.
When you stand, you contribute to a future that values the wisdom that is available through the words, actions and deeds of those that came before us. Valuing our collective past means we are effectively protecting others future.
Trudeau cabinet’s Bill Blair has revealed that their gun control plan will be rolled out in a “multi-step process” which will include the prohibition of the sale of assault weapons.
While the Trudeau government aims to prohibit assault weapons quickly, other measures, they say, will take more time, including the partial handgun ban that will require talks between the federal and provincial governments, according to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.
Trudeau had specifically called for the banning of “military-style assault weapons” during his 2019 campaign, with a primary focus on weapons that farmers “did not” need that were designed to kill “the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”
Blair went on to tell reporters Tuesday that his government will implement their agenda on firearms as the steps become ready to implement by the federal government or by the country’s minority parliament.
“Our work is to reduce the supply of guns getting into the hands of criminals, but you also have to interdict the demand for those guns,” he said. “We have just gone through, for many communities across Canada, a very difficult summer last year. And so we want to make sure we are there for those communities and work in those communities to make substantive changes and investments that will help to keep them safe,” Blair told The Globe and Mail in Winnipeg.
Blair said that new rules being put in place “could be accomplished in the near term,” going on to say that programs like an assault weapon buyback “will take a little bit more time.”
When Prime Minister Trudeau was asked in September about those who would not want to participate in a gun buy-back and “making law-abiding citizens into criminals,” Trudeau did not give a direct answer.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized for splashing out on gourmet doughnuts this week in Winnipeg, Manitoba, according to Global News.
The doughnuts in question were purchased at Oh Doughnuts, which, as discovered by True North Centre, cost an eye-watering $47 per dozen.
The owners of the restaurant, however, said that the $47 doughnuts were their “most elaborate, fancy doughnuts… which they didn’t get. They just got regular variety doughnuts.”
As well as this, the doughnut shop stated that Trudeau ordered the product online, resulting in a ten percent price decrease.
This, compared, to Canada’s favourite doughnut shop Tim Hortons, who sells doughnuts for less than ten dollars per dozen, will lead to questions about Trudeau’s inclination to fork out taxpayer money on unnecessary expenses for himself and his Liberal team, all while his government fights veterans and Indigenous people in court over money.
Justin Trudeau is in Winnipeg for a cabinet retreat where he re-groups with his executive in preparation for the upcoming parliament. Trudeau’s retreats have often been stamped as needlessly expensive. Take, for instance, the Liberal cabinet’s trip to St. John’s Newfoundland, where Trudeau visited the theatre, leaving Canadians to foot the tab.
As well as this, in 2018 Trudeau splurged on a cabinet retreat to Vancouver Island amid the on-going wild fire crisis in the province at the time.
Malaysia is intending to ship 150 containers of illegal waste back to the countries of origin. These countries include Australia, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada.
Malaysia’s Environment Minister Yeo Be Yin, told reporters that “it is not about money, it’s about dignity. When people dump garbage into your country, you are not supposed to pay them to send it back, you expect them to send it back by themselves.”
Yin further added that Malaysia will “stick to this line, we are going to send it back, and we are going to make people who export here and the shipping liners pay for it.”
Yin ended her speech by saying that this new policy “was unprecedented … we will hold the people to be responsible for their actions. They should be paying for the logistics.”
Yin’s comments may be seen as a provocation in what has been described as a “garbage war” by those in the media. Previously, tension rose as Canada sent non-recyclable trash to the Philippines that had been labelled as recyclable. Now, Malaysia is upset for similar reasons.
The garbage dispute between Canada and the Philippines got so bad that the leader of the country threatened to declare war if Canada did not allow the return of the garbage.
For several years now, The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been struggling to designate the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist entity. This is not only a troubling matter for the majority of Canadians, but is also a matter that places question marks on Trudeau’s administration and perhaps even the Prime Minister’s personal agenda.
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity has been the priority of several governments, just not Trudeau’s. The United States of America was the latest to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, joining Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The European Union and United Nations have crippled the IRGC with tough financial sanctions and designated its top members as terrorists as well.
For years now, a number of Canadian politicians have pushed for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but it appears that the man blocking an “entire designation” is Trudeau himself.
These calls were renewed once again after the U.S airstrike which killed IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani on the 3rd of January 2020.
“The Liberals voted for the measure, yet have done nothing to recognize the destructive and destabilizing influence of the IRGC. The Conservative Opposition once again calls upon the Trudeau government to finally list the IRGC as a terrorist entity after 18 months of foot-dragging,” says a joint statement by Conservative MPs Erin O’Toole and James Bezan.
The IRGC has been funding, managing, supervising and conducting terrorist operations for four long decades in Afghanistan, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, South America, Syria and Yemen; so, what’s stopping Trudeau from designating the group, in its entirety, as a terrorist entity?
Justin is struggling to make sense
The Government of Canada has already designated the Quds Force as a terrorist organization. Iran’s Qods Force is merely a unit within the IRGC, specializing in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations around the world. The IRGC regularly threatens the American continent as well as Canada’s closest allies, either directly or through its proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Yemeni Houthis and Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi.
Justin Trudeau’s administration has also renewed the terrorist designation of organizations that are either units or establishments of the IRGC, such as Hezbollah, while totally ignoring the fact that Hezbollah would cease to operate without the backing of the IRGC.
Furthermore, the Trudeau administration considers all of the IRGC’s affiliates such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists, except the IRGC itself. From a national security perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever.
If the majority of the IRGC’s affiliates, small units, establishments and key figures have been designated as sources of terrorism by ally governments and previous Canadian government administrations, why then is Justin Trudeau delaying the terrorist designation of the IRGC, an organization actively sponsoring current designated terrorist organizations while also harbouring in Iran the terrorist leaders of Al-Qaeda?
It’s a ‘yes or no question’
Justin Trudeau, was Qassem Soleimani a terrorist?
If the answer is no, then you simply shouldn’t be Prime Minister.
If the answer is yes, then you are yet to fulfill your duty as Prime Minister towards the national security of Canada, and by not designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity, in its entirety, you are siding with government administrations that allow terrorists to operate with minimal criticism and opposition.