This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Canada Through The Looking Glass: A Warning for America by Jefferson W. Clay March 8, 2004 KeepAndBearArms.com -- After nearly 30 years out of Canada working (and shooting) in a variety of countries and climates, I recently returned, looking forward to the atmospherics and ‘back-woods’ values I had left. Unfortunately I have had to realize that the country I left has very little in common with the authoritarian and Politically Correct community I find here today. The Queen of Hearts, aided and abetted by the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse
has taken over with a vengeance. Surprisingly, it would appear this has come about with little resistance from the average citizen. My impression is that Canadians have created
-- or allowed their society to become -- at least an Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy dreamscape, and more likely, an Orwellian nightmare. There are almost endless examples of change -- for the worse, in my view
-- but there’s an easy example that sets the tone of what has happened. The highly authoritarian (and dishonestly passed) gun control efforts by the Federal government illustrate a broad spectrum of the hypocritical, ill-informed and anti-democratic forces that have taken Canada by storm. It bottom-lines very easily. Canada’s politicians believe that Canadians cannot acceptably run their own lives, and are not to be trusted with guns. Furthermore, any thought of ‘self-defense’ that might include the use of a gun against an armed assailant is rejected out of hand by the police and the courts. Given the upside down values here (and in England, Australia and New Zealand) the use of a gun in ‘self defense’ by an armed citizen is quite likely to earn the user a criminal sentence, and a civil suit by the criminal who was originally threatening the citizen! When Bill C-68 was passed in 1995, there were effective (some would say more than effective) gun regulations governing the acquisition, use and handling of firearms in Canada. As in many other North American jurisdictions, the responsibilities were clear, and so were the penalties for failing to observe them. But due to a blatantly anti-gun posture by the ruling Liberals under the recent past Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, crime and gun accident “statistics” were willfully distorted to suggest sharply increased criminal usage of firearms (fictional) and growing ugly child-related incidents of accidental shooting deaths (exaggerated). The various Politically Correct cults were already pervasive, and the easy suggestion
-- common at the time -- that armed (quite ordinary) Canadian males represented unspecified threats to minorities, women and civil order became a female sexist political theme. This slander was actively spread by the government-owned and
taxpayer-supported national radio and TV network -- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Shrill feminist elements, supported by duped ‘soccer moms’ bought the Liberal government’s scare tactics with barely a second thought. Urban Montreal and Toronto, home of many of the Queen of Heart’s activist bleeding-heart demagogues, jumped onto the bandwagon with a vengeance. Passage was virtually assured once these population centers swung into action. And to what avail? Great Britain’s draconian anti-gun posture was already accumulating shocking statistics for anyone willing to do a little research. Following England’s expropriation of privately held firearms, armed criminals were springing up in London and the Midlands where none had ever before appeared. Heavily armed gangs began shooting wars, and the peacefully disarmed British private citizen had become a soft target for any zip-gun armed assailant
-- even including street smart twelve year olds with Uzis. But the Queen of Hearts in Canada, and her inspired court of cosmic elite didn’t have the time or the interest in reviewing what had happened in England. Unfortunately, Dr. Thomas Sowell’s brief but telling remark on this subject wasn’t available at this point. “One of the miracles of faith is the liberals’ belief that criminals will stop being armed if we ban guns. We have already banned crime and that doesn’t stop them from committing it.”
[1] What is surprising in Canada, however, is that so many Canadians have chosen to pay so little attention to what the politicians and activist judiciary have wrought, ever since the Trudeau period. In fact, the authoritarian requirements under C-68 for registration, background testing, fee-paying and other mainly useless regulations tell a significant story of apathy as well as high-handed political gangsterism. Given a more than satisfactory set of gun laws prior to C-68, it would appear that C-68 was designed to achieve some other goal. Some say, and I agree, that includes the unilateral reduction of the numbers of firearms in private hands, and ultimately an easy grab for all remaining privately held firearms. Certainly the legislation sets that stage, without ANY requirement for parliamentary oversight. But the rural population in the west and north (Alberta stands out), accustomed to handling guns for hunting and general shooting, has laudably resisted the dishonestly passed laws. And for good reason. Every indication to this date suggests that Bill C-68 and its amendments are ill founded, appallingly badly organized and has resulted in
over one billion dollars of senseless expenditures! And from the reaction of Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, NWT, and even some of the Maritime provinces, it is neither working nor desired by many of Canada’s law abiding and sensible citizens. But let’s look at what is entailed. My own efforts to obtain permission
(NOT a Right in Canada) to keep and bear arms in the extremely restricted legal manner prescribed by C-68 is illustrative. Moving from a mid-western state to the Maritimes and traveling logically northwards and then eastwards proved to be impossible while having some of my drastically reduced weapons carefully locked and packed in the car. Each province, beginning with Ontario would have required me to obtain a preliminary registration, a transport license, and go through the mill on background checks
-- for permission that might not have been granted, on a whim. That was obviously a non-starter. So I contacted the firearms officer in our target province and opened negotiations for bringing in my black powder revolver and Beretta .40 cal. My rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders all went legally by moving van
-- with a sheaf of official papers. We’ll skip the route we drove to get to our ultimate destination. There is always the possibility that some over-zealous bureaucrat could decide that our passage through his jurisdiction was illegal. But on entering Canada, and declaring my possession of two
handguns, we were naturally carefully inspected. The former RCMP officer doing duty as a Customs inspector couldn’t have been more pleasant, and we discussed competitive shooting as my papers were being reviewed. In short, all went sensibly and well. The trouble began when I started the process that ultimately would result in an investigation of my background leading finally to a regularly renewable ‘license’ (with significant fees), for ownership and acquisition of firearms
-- and, quite separately, a hunting license. After some bureaucratic difficulty, it became apparent that I would have to take a succession of courses, and tests, with the fees growing at each level. The first, the Canadian Firearms Safety I
course -- and indeed all of the rest -- represented what the politicians and bureaucrats evidently thought was instructive material. But I, and most others like me, had been taught all of the
effective elements of the courses by my father when he first gave me a .22 rifle at the age of 12. In Canada now, of course, no one under the age of 18 may own a firearm. But I suspect that like almost every aspect of today’s society, the attitude of Big Brother in Ottawa is that fathers no longer teach their children anything. It is therefore for Government to provide both the course material and the criminal penalties for not operating in a fashion I learned at 12 was both sensible and safe. The fact that I spent 6 years in the Reserve of the United States Marines, and competed in shoots internationally also added significantly to my background knowledge, and counted for zilch here in Canada. But the fundamental problem with the various committee-drawn “Safety” courses that I had to pay for and attend, and be tested on,
was that they were -- like almost every liberal-founded societal rule today -- extremely poorly drawn up, and predicated on a student’s IQ equivalency of a bag of nails. Such a combination of unpleasantly negative expectations suggests a very low probability for successfully
teaching anything -- to anyone -- that would be retained for over an hour after the tests were administered. But it employs bureaucrats, produces fees, and presents the appearance a concerned government dealing with those ‘unstable’ Canadian males. C-68 also quite literally put the power into the hands of one single politician
-- the Minister of Justice -- to unilaterally, and without warning, decide to grab every gun in Canada,
without due process. Thus -- given the cosmic wisdom of today’s liberal anointed
-- the machinery to justify the duplicity of C-68 not only had to be laboriously implemented, but also enforced. Each course I took ended with several pages
-- perhaps thirty minutes of the lecturer’s time -- in underlining the serious
criminal penalties that would apply for failing to observe the rules of the courses. $5000 in fines and a possible five years in prison tended to be the prospective penalties for
failing to properly store weapons and ammo. That included not locking -- even muzzleloaders
-- when displaying them on a wall, and other in-home ‘unacceptable’ and therefore
criminal behavior. Under the auspices of “Safety,” the anointed are imposing enough rules and regulations to perpetually control and dominate every aspect of a citizen’s life
-- in home or out! Or else! My final test -- for hunting “Safety” -- was instructive, but on an altogether different level than what the now enormous C-68 bureaucracy intended. The instruction book itself was quite interesting, in that every element of government with even a remote familiarity with the out-of-doors and hunting clearly wanted to participate in authoring the work. The cost must have been staggering. But as in all liberally inspired legislation for the protection of citizens,
the curiously-phrased injunctions are claimed to be predicated on “Safety”. Not a strange emphasis perhaps, particularly as anyone arguing against “Safety” is dismissed as an irresponsible type. But the way it is presented illustrates condescension on the part of the authors suggesting a doctor addressing an unusually stupid patient. More significantly, the content of the course represents a compendium of lore, common sense
-- and strangely even boating knowledge -- that anyone unfamiliar with the 109 pages of material would take weeks to properly absorb
-- and remember. In other words, except for those who were already familiar with much of the material (likely any sensible gun owner and hunter),
the course was a total waste of time and money. More to the point, the courses almost certainly failed to achieve what they allegedly set out to
do: Instruct incompetents to “safely” and sensibly handle firearms while hunting. So, when I finally sat down to take the fairly brief multiple-choice Hunting test, administered by the course lecturer, and which included about ten boys of ages about 14 to 16 years old,
I expected to be out very quickly. I was, but only because I was able to shut out the din that immediately erupted in the room.
Virtually none of the youngsters in the room were comfortable reading, understanding and answering the very basic multiple-choice questions! The lecturer had to read each question slowly
-- as though to foreigners unfamiliar with English -- and then slowly read and occasionally repeat
each of the four or five multiple choice answers! Seven months after finishing these mandated indoctrinations, scrutinies and tests
-- and about $250 in fees -- I finally obtained official approval for my firearms. Those that are permitted in Canada, that is. There’s not much more to say about the background and rationale of C-68. Drawn up in duplicity, sold to the public with false and impossible promises, the gun laws under C-68 and its amendments were designed to dupe Canadians. Not satisfied with reasonably restrictive laws before 1995, the Liberals virtually served notice on Canada that citizens are not to be trusted to own firearms. In Summary: Generally, I discovered that there is a national theme that has been implemented by the ruling parties in the Federal and Provincial governments over the past 30 years, and their bosses
-- the semi-visible and fairly small ruling mercantile elite of Canada. It can be summarized very nicely in the words of a columnist I highly regard, albeit, written originally about the U.S. The Canadian “government realizes that a citizen must be protected whether he wants to be or not—controlled, regulated, and intimidated in every aspect of everything he does,
for his own good. He must not be permitted to ride a bicycle without a helmet, smoke if he chooses, or go to a bar where smoking is permitted. He cannot be trusted to run his life.”
[2] (Article author’s italics) But it’s more than that in Canada. He is first and foremost not to be educated to a level and competency that he
recognizes that he is being manipulated every day of his life, and that he has few, if any, real choices. Worse,
the bureaucracies responsible for looking after him are not to lose their tenuous claim for validity by encouraging him to learn self-sufficiency. Bill C-68 only deals with gun ownership and use. But it is key to the philosophy of Canada’s politicians and their overwhelming contempt for their fellow citizens. The fact that close friends and political cronies of the recent past Prime
Minister (who was responsible for pushing C-68) have been discovered to have “misplaced” well over $100 million, perfectly characterizes the quality and honesty of the people and party responsible for C-68. Unfortunately, personal accountability, political honesty, and self-reliance are concepts gathering dust in Canadian history books, which in turn are being edited to eliminate even their shadows. And the tea party carries on uninterrupted. Canada has become a Hillary-style twenty first century cross between Orwell’s
1984 and Animal Farm, with elements of Alice Through The Looking
Glass. Depressingly, very few Canadians outside of Alberta appear to notice what has been done to them. It is a morbid scene, reminiscent of countless historical narcissistic dreamscapes, the most recent of which in the twentieth century represent Man at his most intolerable. It is also one that Americans might well seriously consider as the 2004 elections rapidly approach, and very similar noises are being heard from
-- well -- you know who. Jefferson W. Clay 1. Thomas Sowell, Barbarians Inside the
Gates, Hoover Inst. Press, 1999 2. Fred Reed www.fredoneverything.net
RELATED READING: Canadian
Gun Control archives |
||||||||