It amazes me that there hasn’t been ANY
outcry about the fact that politicians need
not be properly elected in this country
anymore. Allow me to provide three brief
examples of the government’s autocratic
breaking away from democracy.

Two instances are the most recent
premiers of British Columbia. Christy
Clark did two terms without a
straightforward win of a seat in the
legislature. In the first term she wasn’t
even a politician when she was
APPOINTED premier by her party after
Gordon Campbell resigned. And then the
second time she actually LOST the vote
but for some undisclosed reason the
government decided she absolutely HAD
to be the premier so they rigged up
another election for her in another city
shortly after her defeat. Then when she
allegedly won that vote they claimed that
this second run at office entitled her to
become the premier. It was made very
clear that Clark didn’t have to be elected
to be premier. And I say “allegedly won”
because I’m very skeptical about the
integrity of voting systems, here or
anywhere.

And now we have the present premier
who got his position the same way --
through a slippery legal maneuver. Even
though John Horgan’s party didn’t win the
election with the majority of MLAs,
somehow it became the ruling party
anyway. Is that fair to the people of the
province? I don’t think it is. Any premier
or government that comes into office
other than by being elected in a
conventional manner with the majority of
seats or votes is sending a clear message
about their position on democratic
principles. They’re showing contempt for
democracy.

Then on the federal level there’s the
current leader of the NDP who came into
his position in a similar way. It’s my
understanding that he wasn’t even an MP
when he became the party leader. In fact, I
think he might still even be a
PROVINCIAL politician!

It’s disappointing that there’s been no
public backlash whatsoever about this
shift away from democracy. Neither the
public nor the media care that people can
now be appointed into positions of power
without public input under the guise of
being democratically elected. The
Canadian news media screams about
Russia rigging the U.S. election yet they
ignore the dictatorship games that are
happening here. That’s how complacent
and STUPID Canadians are when it comes
to politics. And it’s also why there’s
cynicism about voting and a sense that
elections are fixed.

I confess, I was initially quite happy to
hear that the NDP were coming into
power in this province. The last time they
were the ruling party was in the 1990s
and I have wonderful memories of that
period. I was married to a terrific woman
and living in a nice house in Crescent
Beach near White Rock. I was moving up
in a field I loved, radio, and I’d gotten a
dream job with a big media company in
Vancouver. I had money and my wife and I
were socializing and dining out every
other night and going on trips regularly.
These were the best times of my life.

But then it all came crashing down when I
ran into legal trouble which, interestingly
enough, coincided almost precisely with
the changing of the guard to the Liberals
from the NDP.

But despite my positive memories of past
prosperity and happiness, my pleasure
regarding the return of the NDP this year
was crushed when, immediately after they
became the new government, I got a nasty
ten-page letter warning me to get ready
for a FIFTY-TWO PERCENT
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE (!), a bill
which is paid to the province.

Say what you will about the Liberals, my
property tax bill actually DECREASED
during their tenure and I was never
badgered with disgusting hate mail about
extortionate tax hikes.

It seems to me that when a party is
enacting law and taking widespread action
against people as governments do, they
damn well SHOULD be democratically
elected by the people. But that doesn’t
happen in British Columbia anymore and
that’s a sign of a degradation into
dictatorial autocracy.

Another topic I want to bring up is the
emerging trend of new political leaders
wearing turbans and looking like they
could be residents of India. I’ve seen this
in many news reports featuring federal
government MPs. One example is the
new leader of the NDP.

Yes, this is a superficial thing, judging
people by what they wear, by their
fashion. But then politics is all about
perception and image. People do make
judgments based on appearance (although
I’ve learned over the years that one must
be very careful about doing so).

Now, I’m not about to declare that
political leaders shouldn’t wear turbans.
They can wear whatever the hell they
want; it’s their business and not mine. But
I AM saying that it sends signals to us.

One message is that these individuals are
rebelliously resistant to assimilating into
the cultural mainstream of our country.
What is the cultural mainstream? In
government it’s suits and ties and no
headgear. As such, since we primarily see
these headdresses worn in the federal
government, we can surmise that
Parliament has a rebellious streak to it.

Further, it tells us that these individuals
are members of an Indian ideology and
that the government is being influenced
by this ideology.
Facebook Page
Twitter Page
YouTube Channel
The Callum Houston Web Page
YouTube Channel
Message Page
 
HOME PAGE
Name:
Comment:
Have a comment?
Home Page
1 / 1
What the fuck happened to democracy in
Canada? And why the hell doesn’t
anybody CARE?
Facebook Page
Twitter Page
YouTube Channel
HOME PAGE
1 / 1
Name:
Comment:
HAVE A COMMENT?
YouTube Channel
THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY!
November 24, 2017
THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY!
November 24, 2017
 
What the fuck happened to democracy in
Canada? And why the hell doesn’t anybody
CARE? It amazes me that there hasn’t been
ANY outcry about the fact that politicians
need not be properly elected in this country
anymore. Allow me to provide three brief
examples of the government’s autocratic
breaking away from democracy.
Two instances are the most recent premiers of British Columbia. Christy Clark did
two terms without a straightforward win of a seat in the legislature. In the first term
she wasn’t even a politician when she was APPOINTED premier by her party after
Gordon Campbell resigned. And then the second time she actually LOST the vote
but for some undisclosed reason the government decided she absolutely HAD to be
the premier so they rigged up another election for her in another city shortly after her
defeat. Then when she allegedly won that vote they claimed that this second run at
office entitled her to become the premier. It was made very clear that Clark didn’t
have to be elected to be premier. And I say “allegedly won” because I’m very
skeptical about the integrity of voting systems, here or anywhere.

And now we have the present premier who got his position the same way -- through a
slippery legal maneuver. Even though John Horgan’s party didn’t win the election
with the majority of MLAs, somehow it became the ruling party anyway. Is that fair to
the people of the province? I don’t think it is. Any premier or government that comes
into office other than by being elected in a conventional manner with the majority of
seats or votes is sending a clear message about their position on democratic
principles. They’re showing contempt for democracy.

Then on the federal level there’s the current leader of the NDP who came into his
position in a similar way. It’s my understanding that he wasn’t even an MP when he
became the party leader. In fact, I think he might still even be a PROVINCIAL
politician!

It’s disappointing that there’s been no public backlash whatsoever about this shift
away from democracy. Neither the public nor the media care that people can now be
appointed into positions of power without public input under the guise of being
democratically elected. The Canadian news media screams about Russia rigging the
U.S. election yet they ignore the dictatorship games that are happening here. That’s
how complacent and STUPID Canadians are when it comes to politics. And it’s also
why there’s cynicism about voting and a sense that elections are fixed.

I confess, I was initially quite happy to hear that the NDP were coming into power in
this province. The last time they were the ruling party was in the 1990s and I have
wonderful memories of that period. I was married to a terrific woman and living in a
nice house in Crescent Beach near White Rock. I was moving up in a field I loved,
radio, and I’d gotten a dream job with a big media company in Vancouver. I had
money and my wife and I were socializing and dining out every other night and going
on trips regularly. These were the best times of my life.

But then it all came crashing down when I ran into legal trouble which, interestingly
enough, coincided almost precisely with the changing of the guard to the Liberals
from the NDP.

But despite my positive memories of past prosperity and happiness, my pleasure
regarding the return of the NDP this year was crushed when, immediately after they
became the new government, I got a nasty ten-page letter warning me to get ready for
a FIFTY-TWO PERCENT PROPERTY TAX INCREASE (!), a bill which is paid
to the province.

Say what you will about the Liberals, my property tax bill actually DECREASED
during their tenure and I was never badgered with disgusting hate mail about
extortionate tax hikes.

It seems to me that when a party is enacting law and taking widespread action against
people as governments do, they damn well SHOULD be democratically elected by
the people. But that doesn’t happen in British Columbia anymore and that’s a sign of
a degradation into dictatorial autocracy.

Another topic I want to bring up is the emerging trend of new political leaders
wearing turbans and looking like they could be residents of India. I’ve seen this in
many news reports featuring federal government MPs. One example is the new leader
of the NDP.

Yes, this is a superficial thing, judging people by what they wear, by their fashion. But
then politics is all about perception and image. People do make judgments based on
appearance (although I’ve learned over the years that one must be very careful about
doing so).

Now, I’m not about to declare that political leaders shouldn’t wear turbans. They can
wear whatever the hell they want; it’s their business and not mine. But I AM saying
that it sends signals to us.

One message is that these individuals are rebelliously resistant to assimilating into the
cultural mainstream of our country. What is the cultural mainstream? In government
it’s suits and ties and no headgear. As such, since we primarily see these headdresses
worn in the federal government, we can surmise that Parliament has a rebellious streak
to it.

Further, it tells us that these individuals are members of an Indian ideology and that
the government is being influenced by this ideology.

Should we be impressed with this? Is the government of India a good example of the
standards a regime should aspire to? I would say it isn’t. This is a backwards country
that has a tradition of stoning people to death and still has the death penalty by way
of HANGING on the books. That is savagery right out of the Wild West.

Another message is that we could soon have a prime minister who wears a turban,
symbolic dress of not just another culture -- but another COUNTRY altogether!!!
That is a radical message to receive from the Canadian government. The implication
here is that there could be a shift in government that would see us under the direct
rule of an Indian-influenced regime.

The next big question is: Why is the federal government sending these signals to us?
Is it to SHOCK conservative Canada? To push our buttons? To threaten us? Maybe
so. And yes, it WAS shocking to see a turban-wearing man elected by a major federal
political party as their leader. For about a micro-second. And then it meant nothing in
this upside-down age of so many norms being turned on their head.

But beware: The next micro-second shock will be when that turban-clad man
becomes prime minister which I believe could very well happen -- if not by
democratic election then by secret proclamation. If American elections are being
hacked then it’s guaranteed that the same thing is happening here since government
fraud is not openly combated in this country, including election fraud.

In conclusion, I should point out that while the focal point for me when I saw this
new leader in the news was his culturally identifying headdress, in reality his turban
was just distracting subterfuge. Yes, the man’s turban is an overt symbol of the Sikh
religion and of India. But there’s another religion at play here, one that unifies the
government and overrides all other belief systems. That religion is the bar. Many
political leaders are lawyers, as is this NDP leader. They are disciples of the cult of
the legal system. They are the Illuminati and court judges are their supreme overlords.

So don’t be diverted by the turban. It’s just a red herring. Lawyers have many faces
and they disguise themselves in many different ways. Ultimately the government is a
lawyer institution. And it’s not about democratic principles when it comes to
attorneys, it’s about money and power and secrecy. Thus, when the lawyers are
calling the shots, you’ll see democracy get trampled on.
Should we be impressed with this? Is the
government of India a good example of
the standards a regime should aspire to? I
would say it isn’t. This is a backwards
country that has a tradition of stoning
people to death and still has the death
penalty by way of HANGING on the
books. That is savagery right out of the
Wild West.

Another message is that we could soon
have a prime minister who wears a turban,
symbolic dress of not just another culture
-- but another COUNTRY altogether!!!
That is a radical message to receive from
the Canadian government. The
implication here is that there could be a
shift in government that would see us
under the direct rule of an Indian-
influenced regime.

The next big question is: Why is the
federal government sending these signals
to us? Is it to SHOCK conservative
Canada? To push our buttons? To threaten
us? Maybe so. And yes, it WAS shocking
to see a turban-wearing man elected by a
major federal political party as their
leader. For about a micro-second. And
then it meant nothing in this upside-down
age of so many norms being turned on
their head.

But beware: The next micro-second
shock will be when that turban-clad man
becomes prime minister which I believe
could very well happen -- if not by
democratic election then by secret
proclamation. If American elections are
being hacked then it’s guaranteed that the
same thing is happening here since
government fraud is not openly combated
in this country, including election fraud.

In conclusion, I should point out that
while the focal point for me when I saw
this new leader in the news was his
culturally identifying headdress, in reality
his turban was just distracting subterfuge.
Yes, the man’s turban is an overt symbol
of the Sikh religion and of India. But
there’s another religion at play here, one
that unifies the government and overrides
all other belief systems. That religion is
the bar. Many political leaders are
lawyers, as is this NDP leader. They are
disciples of the cult of the legal system.
They are the Illuminati and court judges
are their supreme overlords.

So don’t be diverted by the turban. It’s
just a red herring. Lawyers have many
faces and they disguise themselves in
many different ways. Ultimately the
government is a lawyer institution. And
it’s not about democratic principles when
it comes to attorneys, it’s about money
and power and secrecy. Thus, when the
lawyers are calling the shots, you’ll see
democracy get trampled on.