What Views Are Unacceptable? & Who Gets To Decide What Views To Have?

We have been exposed to another infamous, and somewhat staggering speech from our PM in Canada. It is already spinning and grinding the wheels in our heads – churning up yet another flurry of indignation.

In response to the trucker’s freedom convoy, we have been told that some people have unacceptable views. He claimed this convoy of truckers is nothing. That’s right, nothing but an angry fringe mob representing a very small minority. Seriously?

Our PM also shows great disdain for anger, unless of course it is his own anger, then it’s okay. Otherwise, no unacceptable views. There can be no anger over his views either. It is very odd coming from a man who has a history of supporting all kinds of minority fringe groups.

In fact, he implies – if we don’t smarten up, we will somehow be punished for our unacceptable viewpoints too. Create a crisis, cause a reaction – punish the reaction. Quite the cycle of abuse. How can he be surprised that people would finally say enough? From his perspective, when is it enough? Taking it to the wall – or to the wild side? Why would any leader stoke division, and uproar to the point of mass protest?

When the ball is in his court, he grabs it and takes it home with him. It is HIS ball, so the game is over, if he is not guaranteed to win. To some, power is like child’s play. Petulant and pure as the driven snow – like last weeks blizzard. Anyone not on board with that, can stay out in the cold and starve. Fair play is another unacceptable view. He gets paid. He gets food. He travels freely. So what is everyone else so worried about?

But sadly for him, after the vision clears – the narrative is crumbling like a stack of cards. There is no controlling the domino effect, when legalism and petty rules no longer make any sense. Laws that provide stability and protect inalienable rights, are a reflection of societal values. Laws and rules that make no sense, will be rejected by those same range of societal values. There are Universal laws that some politicians tend to forget about in the never ending quest for absolute power.

The central message coming from the trucker’s convoy, could be called a view. The convoy carries a message of Freedom. How can any PM or democratic leader claim in front of the nation – that freedom is an unacceptable view? Where is the list of unacceptable views? We should all know what they are. Shouldn’t we?

The minute freedom is mentioned – the polarized opposite spins it into anarchy. But that is absurd, because what a freedom rally is trying to do – is prevent anarchy.

The cause of anarchy is a descent into chaos based on a refusal to follow the laws. Dismantling Constitutional laws, and other laws surrounding informed consent, laws protecting inalienable human rights, economic rights, rights to freely assemble, and privacy laws in health care – these are the laws that prevent us from falling into chaos and anarchy. Yet these are the very foundational laws that have been eroded and dismantled over covid. Laws that have been holding us together for hundreds of years got tossed in just a two year period, without any proper judicial processes.

Once again, the wording and the polarities are spinning this to pretend that all the faux covid laws are actually the laws. One of the main reasons there is so much controversy and passionate responses to these mandates, is because Canadians generally know what the laws are, and for the most part have always been tolerant and law abiding.

Unacceptable views do exist. They are outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada. The list includes everything from property crime, to violent assaults, kidnapping, child pornography, theft, inciting violence, fraud, and so on.

Foundational laws must be maintained, or we lose our democracy. In my opinion, Canadian citizens are saying “I want the foundational laws that are meant to govern our land and protect our inalienable rights back”. Taking those foundational laws away, is taking away the rule of law. The more legalistic and controlling things become with rules that are not in sync with the supreme laws of the land – is a dichotomy that even a five year old cannot process.

Being forced to internalize so many contradictions does have an impact on mental health. Some people become depressed. Other people become angry. A good leader would probe for underlying concerns. But instead – people are told these are unacceptable views and that it is not okay to be angry. The expression of anger as in a peaceful protest has a purpose. The purpose is to make a grievance known. Anger is the emotion and catalyst that leads to constructive change, if it is managed properly.

Mental illness or unacceptable views must have accompanying symptoms or laws attached to them. People struggle with mental health on a regular basis. They are not sick just because they struggle. They are sick if they cannot cope, or if they act out in a way that threatens harm. The key is to maintain self control regardless of how you feel.

The idea of stomping out all opposing views, with a singular focus on getting 100% of the population vaccinated is an extremist viewpoint. It is as extreme as it gets.

Not only do all people have to get vaccinated, but if they do not, they are severely restricted and shamed. They cannot work. They cannot get EI even though all employees pay into it. Many are saying they should be denied health care, even though they pay taxes like anyone else. It has been taken to the extreme in name calling and denouncing the unvaccinated as “not being Canadian citizens”. These are the views of extremism in my opinion.

The other glaring viewpoint or polarity right now is between – follow the science or follow the truckers. Pick one.

People pick what they can trust, what they need, what they believe in. Thought reform is a fear based attempt to oppress and subvert popular dissent. Guess what – it does not work. It does not jive with foundational laws based on one of the oldest Constitutional monarchies in the world.

The Canadian Constitution has language to protect inalienable rights in the event a government loses sight of its role. This is the language of the law. Those are the views Canadians are standing up for.

To have a PM stand up at a time of leadership crisis and basically denounce the Canadian Constitution as being an unacceptable view – is almost inconceivable. Yet – he came out with that speech. Did he think it through? Where does it lead? At least the truckers knew where they were headed. I really wonder what Trudeau is trying to do. If what he says is intended to clarify anything – all it has done is muddy the waters and make his views look downright scary.