Canada's Domestic False Flag War Has Many Fronts

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.  All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,  and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials

There is no doubt that the attack on Parliament Hill last October, by a lone wolf gunman, became Stephen Harper's false flag war; as the government, with the help of the media, painted it as an attack perpetrated by ISIS.

In the wake of 9/11, the fear on that day was real, as no one knew how many gunmen were involved, and how organized the attack. We now know that it was just one mentally unbalanced homeless man, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who had no ties to any terrorist organization.

Since then, the Conservatives have used this false flag war as an excuse to further erode our civil liberties, in the name of terror. On the campaign trail, Harper is emphasizing the need for security, while suggesting that only he can keep us safe. The politics of fear.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler

Not Canada's Only False Flag War

The term "false flag" originated in the days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy, before attacking another ship in its own navy. This would then be used as excuse to go to the war. After all, didn't they have the right to defend themselves?

However, "false flag" does not have to refer to fact manipulation, in order to promote a military engagement, but can also be used as a tactic to undermine political opponents. There is little doubt that Justin Trudeau was set up to take the fall for Bill C-51, the Harper government's egregious, so-called anti-terrorist bill.

If all is fair in love and politics, the NDP's political exploitation of the situation, could be called "fair" or at least a clever tactic against Trudeau and the Liberal party, leading into the election campaign.  It certainly hurt the Liberals, at least temporarily.

What surprised me however, was the media's complicity in this.  If it is a journalist's job to inform the public, while recording history; what will future historians think of the reporting and recording, of the events following the passage of Bill C-51?

They might initially believe that it was Justin Trudeau's bill, until realizing that he wasn't the prime minister. He wasn't even the leader of the official opposition and did not head a coup. How could he possibly be responsible?

It would be easy for them to see through the actions of the NDP, but might be understandably puzzled by the direction taken by "journalists".

Not that the media hasn't helped to fan the flames of war, but why did they see it as their responsibility, to attack a political party with biased reporting, to help the prospects of another political party or parties?

However, while the NDP might, seemingly, have been the beneficiaries of this engagement, in the end, by giving Harper a free pass on the bill, they could also be the fallen soldiers.  They chose the wrong allies.  The Conservative army takes no prisoners.

The NDP's False Flag War Claims Many Victims

With the distraction of the orange dog and pony show, there was important information that the Canadian public was not privy to. Bill C-51, was not just an anti-terrorism bill, but an omnibus bill, with many critical elements that should have been examined and made election issues. According to Vice:

.. this national debate about surveillance is also a distraction from the fact that Stephen Harper is once again using a monstrous bill to simultaneously change dozens of pieces of legislation while severely limiting Parliament's ability to have a meaningful debate about these issues. Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill, meaning that it is creating two laws but also amending roughly a dozen others from the Department of Fisheries Act to the Criminal Code to the Income Tax Act.

This Means that we have lost the opportunity to debate these things, that are rarely mentioned by the media, too wrapped up in the Justin Trudeau nonsense.

There is now a series of memes being passed around, that make many of the things that Stephen Harper does in his politics of fear, pale by comparison. Showing a protest group and the idea that stopping protests, is the real reason for the bill, is not only a false flag, but entirely false.

Originally there was a clause that allowed "lawful" protest. However, when concern was raised that "lawful" could be left to interpretation, the word was removed. This means that the bill does not stop protests

"The first amendment would clarify that any protest or dissent would not fall under C-51. .. University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese, along with fellow academic Kent Roach, has conducted an in-depth analysis of the bill. Forcese said that dropping the word “lawful” from C-51 to ensure it doesn't target civil disobedience activities may allay some concerns on the part of environmental and aboriginal groups.

So why are these people trying to suggest that protests will no longer be allowed in Canada?

This bill is flawed for so many reasons, and in the wrong hands could certainly be used for a lot of things. However, we have seen human rights abuses in this country, long before Bill C-51.

These images are designed to create fear where there should be no fear, while hiding the things we should be afraid of.

This kind of hyperbole can actually have a different affect than expected. Over the top fear tactics often turn people off, but more importantly, they might do irreparable harm to future protest actions.

If people are frightened that engaging in such things, could get them arrested or painted as terrorists, they might think twice before taking part.

The politics of fear, whether coming from the Conservatives or NDP, are still the politics of fear.

Why Mulcair Could Be in Trouble Over Bill C-51

I think by now most people realize that the NDP stance on Bill C-51 was crafted to make Justin Trudeau look bad.

Before their vocal opposition, Mulcair had not yet decided how to handle the bill.  In fact, he told Tom Clark that he would not necessarily repeal Bill C-51 if elected, but only make amendments to it.  The same stand as Justin's.

Perhaps the biggest mistake made by the Liberal leader, was showing his hand first, instead of waiting while Mulcair danced around the situation.

After all, Mulcair had the most to lose at the time.  Quebec was still reeling from the murder of Patrice Vincent, who was run over with a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau.

Couture-Rouleau was on the RCMP terrorist watch list, as high risk, but there was little they could do unless he actually committed an act of terror.

In the days before Vincent’s killing, the RCMP tried and failed to restrict Rouleau-Couture’s movements by seeking a court-ordered peace bond to impose conditions on his daily routine. But a Quebec prosecutor reportedly believed there was insufficient evidence to take the case before a judge.

Meanwhile, authorities fear more individuals who are stopped from leaving Canada to become “foreign fighters” with overseas extremist groups will react violently on Canadian soil.

Some changes to our security laws were necessary.  Changes that might have prevented the death of Patrice Vincent.  His sister Louise, spoke before the public safety and national security committee.

The sister of a Canadian soldier killed by a man with jihadist sympathies spoke out in favour of the Conservative government’s controversial anti-terror legislation, saying Bill C-51 is needed to prevent future attacks in the country.   

She told a public safety and national security committee Monday that her brother’s death had an impact that went beyond her family or the province of Quebec.  

“It touched the whole of Canada,” she said after showing the committee a sampling of letters and cards her family received after Vincent’s death.  “It touched the world.”   

“So this, C-51, is important,” she said, before adding in French: “Patrice Vincent must not have died in vain.”

No one is surprised that Stephen Harper would push through a bill giving himself more control, but did he really need it to stifle dissent?  We only have to look at the horrendous human rights abuses in Toronto during the G-20, a few years ago; to know that he will abuse his power, with or without any bill.

However, the way that this thing has been politicized by the NDP for political gain, means that Mr. Vincent's death means nothing to them.  They had an opportunity to honour this man by calling for cooler heads to prevail, and sticking to their promise to amend.   They should be ashamed.

Was Mulcair Set Up or Just Misguided?

Stephen Harper is not a stupid man.  He had to know that there were items in Bill C-51 that would raise the ire of the opposition parties, allowing him to play the role of the only leader willing to protect us and make sure that Patrice Vincent's death was not in vain.

However, not even he, could have anticipated the media circus that Mulcair and the NDP would create. Yes, he knew there would be lots of protests, but has never cared about that.  It only helps to feed his ego.

Not only did they temporarily knock Justin Trudeau down for him, but positioned themselves firmly on the side of what Harper has always called the "fringe".

Yes, there is a lot of opposition to the Bill, by many respected people, as well there should be.  Because of their concerns, court challenges will remove the most egregious parts.  I have enough confidence in our justice system to realize that.  So does Thomas Mulcair and the NDP.

I also fully support the actual protesters, just not the groups planted by NDP riding associations, who have an agenda.

Richard Cleroux wrote recently that the NDP's public opposition to the bill could be a silver lining for Harper.

A major electoral factor was at play. If the Liberals had voted against the legislation, it would have given the Conservatives an opening during the general election campaign to say that Trudeau was on the side of terrorists, which is what the Conservatives are saying right now about Mulcair and his New Democrats.   

Mulcair promises that if elected to a majority government, he’ll repeal the new law and CSIS and the police will have to continue working under the current anti-terrorism laws that seem to have served Canada so well.  Trudeau promises, if elected to a majority government, to repeal some, but not all, parts of the law

Now only Mulcair is viewed as being soft on terror, by those who support the safety measures of Bill C-51, and Harper is already playing to that.

His campaign was launched in Montreal where instead of speaking on his (failed) economic policies, he is focusing on security and his protection of Israel.

Canada’s economic indicators are not what the government expected at the time of its delayed spring budget in late April. Prospects for short-term improvements are slim.   

That leaves the national security card: the other priority Harper listed when he called the election.   

In Mount Royal — a riding that is home to the second-largest Jewish population in Canada — Harper’s staunch pro-Israel stance and his combative approach to the war against Islamic State resonate more loudly than anywhere else in most of Canada.

This was Mulcair's shtick, but he has now taken himself out of the equation.  Only Harper is seen as having the mettle to protect Israel, by being tough on terror.  Guess Mulcair didn't think it through.

Where Trudeau Sets Himself Apart From the Two Old Guys

At a Liberal gathering recently, a group of mostly NDP protesters marched outside, losing their voice while screaming that their freedom of speech was being taken away (get the irony?); several Liberal members came out to address the crowd.

But this wasn't good enough.  They were out for blood and wanted Justin.

Despite the risk, young Trudeau complied, confronting the protesters, and answering questions as best he could, over the noise.  I think that's the real story here.

Can you imagine Stephen Harper or Thomas Mulcair, confronting a group of noisy protesters?  It would never happen.  Mulcair's MO was usually to take pot shots at people and then run.

In a discussion over Justin's bravery, that included the usual "Liberal this and Liberal that" nonsense, one reader mentioned a time when she saw Mulcair in action.

The one time I had a chance to meet him at a science and policy conference he took no questions and hustled out without letting the scientists challenge his anti-nuclear and anti-GMO pseudoscience. And we were a friendly audience.

This appears to be part of a new pattern.  Give your speech and run.  He's getting more like Harper everyday.

Both are certainly becoming petty.  In Chantel Hebert's piece mentioned above, she revealed Harper's newest strategy in dealing with the growing popularity of Justin Trudeau.  He simply refuses to use his name. She calls it a "small and ultimately petty gesture".

Just as petty is Thomas Mulcair, telling his followers that if they read a media report that mentions Justin before him, to write the source and "give them s**t!

Their fear is palpable.

On the other hand, it might be wise for the NDP not to let Mulcair answer questions.  When he was in the Quebec legislature, he earned a reputation for his elaborate conspiracy theories.  Some of them were quite comical and I plan to share them later.

He didn't need "pseudo-science" to make himself look silly.  Often he just had to open his mouth.

It's going to be a long two and a half months for the poor man.

Thomas Mulcair is wrong to Invoke Tommy Douglas and the War Measures Act.

On October 12, 1970, Pierre LaPorte's wife received a letter from her husband: (1)

The day before Quebec premier Robert Bourassa had also received a letter from his labour minister: (1)

How could Mr. Bourassa not be moved by such a letter?  How could anyone not in that situation?  "You have the power of life and death over me..."

LaPorte's kidnapping, had followed the kidnapping of British Diplomat James Cross, the week before.

Cross would survive.  Mr. LaPorte was not so lucky.

To understand the severity of the crisis, you had to have lived during that time.  Anglophone communities in Montreal were targeted, especially in the affluent neighborhood of Westmount.

Between 1963 and 1970,  the FLQ had detonated over 95 bombs, including one at the Montreal Stock Exchange, Montreal City Hall and the RCMP recruitment office.  Dozens more were in mailboxes.  This was not like the false flag war that the Harper government has used as an excuse for Bill C-51.

This was no exaggerated far off threat.  The threats were real and the terrorist activities were taking place in our own country.

The kidnappings were an attempt to have 23 prisoners, charged with previous bombings, released; in exchange for the hostages.

The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to implement the War Measures Act, and Pierre Trudeau complied.  We were indeed at war.  There was some hyperbole, mostly written of in modern times, but there was definitely a clear and present danger in October of 1970.

We know that Tommy Douglas opposed the implementation of the WMA, and said so in his October 16, 1970, address to Parliament.  Four NDP MPs broke ranks, but the rest supported their leader.  He would later explain to CBC, why he raised the alarm:

I'm not saving that the government is going to do all these things. But I am saying that it is dangerous to take these tremendous powers in order to deal with a situation that could be dealt with very easily, namely by bringing into the House of Commons a bill to amend the Criminal Code, giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal. (2)

I see amending the Criminal Code, "giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal" being a slippery slope, since it is quite vague, without an exit.  How long would the allowance to search without warrant be on the books?

There has been a suggestion that Douglas's opposition to the WMA was political, but I don't believe so. Tommy Douglas was a man of conviction. Thomas Mulcair is not, nor would he have opposed the implementation of the Act.

In 1982, the Government of Canada funded a new group called Alliance Quebec, to protect Quebec Anglophone economic interests and combat the threat of separatism.  Mulcair would become their director of legal affairs.  He had also been part of the anti-separatist movement, protesting the 1980 referendum.

Recently, a former president of the AQ had this to say:

My name is William Johnston. I am a veteran journalist/writer and former president of Alliance Québec. I believe the use of the War Measures Act by the federal government of M. Trudeau was necessary at the time. To know more about my views, consult the Virtual Library.

If Mulcair had opposed the WMA at the time, he would never have been allowed membership into Alliance Quebec.  Yet I'm constantly being reminded of the NDP stand, in discussions over Bill C-51.

Like only they have ever stood up for our rights.

As we know Tommy Douglas's opposition was not popular at the time.  85% of Canadians supported the idea, including a large number of NDP members.

Author Elaine Kalman-Knaves wrote of her personal experiences living in Montreal during this time.  She recounts the site of tanks during a different period in her life, when she was a child in Budapest.  They were Soviet tanks, invoking fear.  However, in 1970, while riding a bus home, she remembers seeing the soldiers with guns.

I was awfully glad to see those soldiers at the front of the bus. They were there to protect me and the way of life my family had come to Canada for.

Like many who supported the government's response at the time, she does feel some reget.  However, says Kalman-Knaves:

At the time, I was a card-carrying member of the NDP, yet I believed that David Lewis and Tommy Douglas, who opposed the War Measures Act, were wrong. They weren't going through what Montrealers were in 1970. They didn't feel the pounding of my heart.

Sources:

1. Documents on the October Crisis, Quebec History, Marionapolis College

2. Comments by T. C. Douglas, Leader of the New Democratic Party, On the War Measures Act, CBC, October 16, 1970

Murder, Gun Control and Stepsons

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

On May 28, 1975; 16-year-old Michael Slobodian entered the Brampton Centennial Secondary School armed with two rifles in a guitar case, with the intention of killing his physics teacher, who had given him a failing grade. Michael wanted to go to medical school, and with those hopes dashed, he felt he had nothing left.

The teacher was not available, so he entered the boys' washroom and opened fire. The first to be killed was his friend John Slinger. Slobodian next entered an art classroom, killed English teacher Margaret Wright, and wounded 13 students. He then stepped out into the hallway and turned the gun on himself. The whole thing was over in a matter of minutes. (1)

Witnesses to the carnage were the two daughters of then Ontario premier William Davis.

At the time, Canada's gun laws were pretty lax, but Davis was determined to change that. So he had his attorney-general, John Clement, who had only been on the job for a few months, to connect with the federal government to see what could be done.

Armed with a petition bearing thousands of names of Brampton residents, demanding better gun control, Clement met with federal Justice Minister Otto Lang and Solicitor General Warren Allmand to review possible amendments to the Criminal code. (2)

Mr. Clement would not win the next election, but the wheels were set in motion. Pat and Berwick Slinger, parents of the murdered boy who was described as Slobodian's only friend, testified at the inquest.

As a result Bill C-51 was passed in 1977, and came into affect on January 1, 1978: The two biggest changes included requirements for Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) and requirements for Firearms and Ammunition Business Permits. Other changes included provisions dealing with new offences, search and seizure powers, increased penalties, and new definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons. Fully automatic weapons became classified as prohibited firearms unless they had been registered as restricted weapons before January 1, 1978. Individuals could no longer carry a restricted weapon to protect property. Mandatory minimum sentences were re-introduced. This time, they were in the form of a 1-14 year consecutive sentence for the actual use (not mere possession) of a firearm to commit an indictable offence. (Wikipedia)

John Twining Clement's political career would only last from October 21, 1971 to September 17, 1975, but it would have more of an impact than the duration would suggest. Not only did he help to create tougher gun laws, but he also met Carol Panayi, a single mom who was employed as a secretary to Ontario MPP Bill Hodgson. (3)

The couple would be married in 1979 and Carol's only child Anthony, would take his stepfather's name. And not long after, that stepson would set out to destroy everything that Bill Davis stood for, though it would be a decade and a half before Tony Clement was in a position to enact real change, when he joined the Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris, that turned out to be neither common nor made much sense at all.

Sources:

1. Teen-ager takes own life after killing 2, wounding 13, The Bulletin, May 29, 1975

2. Another school shooting, Thoughts From up Here, March 22, 2005

3. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 31