Protest videos against Trudopian MAiD slippery slope and where it might lead

First of all, all the videos from Tuesday’s protest against Trudeau’s plan to implement state applied killing to those with no criteria except mental illness are all at this post at RAIR Foundation. So please click through to see them all. Each of them are either speeches or interviews with the principles of the demontration. A few are below here as well. As usual, please click the little gear on the bottom right of the play window and select the highest quality to best see the details should you care to.

A few words from this site’s perspective.

The most obvious issue is the slippery slope argument. Once you allow the state to commit murder for certain reasons against their own citizens, then a revolutionary (Communist) government will expand the definitions to include anyone they want for any reason they want. But much more importantly is the less obvious issue. But one for which we have a series of clear and recent precedents, and all from this government now sitting in Ottawa. (In as much as the current government actually are the wielders of power, and not the COMINTERN and/or the PRC. Which frankly it probably is)

And that is that the language used to justify an act which removes a fundamental right, is always presented as kindness. That’s for openers. And the parameters are always set as voluntary. But they always end with mandatory.

Let’s look at how the mRNA vaxx roll out progressed.

Two weeks too flatten the curve became years.

More importantly, those who said the vaxx, once it was available would become mandatory were cancelled for being conspiracy nuts. People who accurately predicted exactly what the state would do, were diminished in every way they could at the time. Then those who argued that events shouldn’t happen as they actually did. Every aspect of the program was a lie from the start, each phase of which was meant to take you from, ‘yeah that seems reasonable’ to where we are today. And where we are with the vaxx is people dead in 6 figures that wouldn’t be, had they not taken the shots, and a growing list of symptoms, the newest of which is rapid hearing loss.

With more direct relevance to this post, state plans went from voluntary, to years later there are medical staff, doctors and nurses who had exemplary records and yet were destroyed for not pushing these shots based on their own personal expertise and often direct experience in the area in question. Doctors had very few choices in the absolute sense of the word. They could promote the shots vigorously as demanded by the state, they could warn people not to take them, and end their career forever, or they could retire and end the whole thing for themselves. I personally know many of all categories. One married couple of doctors I met early early on in the mandates, (and mandates they were) took early retirement because they knew this was an actual violation of the Nuremberg Code, which Canada signed on to as law in the 1950s.

So phase one: A minor temporary violation of your most sacred rights as an individual in a free society for the collective good. At least as presented.

Phase two: Voluntary becomes coerced, and temporary becomes either very long, or permanent, or very long with some aspects of the loss of liberty normalized and permanent.

So if doctors could be forced to take the vaxx, and punished heavily if they recommended against it, or more factually, failed to aid in the coercion of the public to take it, how will this apply to “assisted suicide”? Will doctors initially be able to offer people to kill them if they are in a limited category of special circumstances, and then discover that the categories basically include anyone who might ask for it? Where from there? Will doctors then be encouraged to recommend it to people who are inconvenient to the state? Like vaxx victims or veterans who are badly damaged? And how long, like the vaxx policies, till doctors risk losing their entire careers if they don’t literally coerce people to take the triple death shot (explained in one of the videos below) should they meet criteria decided by the state? Remember how Trudeau spoke about the unvaxxed. It is the position of this site that the mRNA injections actually represented another set of unspoken categories. The revolution-compliant Vs. the counter-revolutionaries. Those who would not take the shots were resistant to state diktats. They believed in themselves as an individual with God given rights or at least rights, and were therefore everything Trudeau, Biden and the rest of the COMINTERN said they were, which makes sense in the context of this metric. Just not in the surface context. But those who took the shots were good comrades. Obedient to the state and in their willingness to submit to something gladly or not, that they really should have questioned more.

This process must be considered when looking at the whole issue of giving the state the power to murder people. Even if the use of that word isn’t perfect. After all, in reality, murder means killing without the right permission. And only the state can give that permission. Which is why soldiers seldom get charged with it unless they kill someone the state doesn’t want killed at that moment. So state killing is a better term than murder. But since the state should not have the power to kill its own citizens even if they request it, maybe we can go either way on which word to use.

Alex Schadenberg Executive Director APC

Human Rights Attorney, Lia Milousis

Colin Postma:

For the other three videos including a Montreal doctor and others, please click through to RAIR where a description of the issue and where it is at now is available.

The Senate yesterday voted to delay the implementation of mental illness as a stand-alone category till 2027. This is good. It means the next government will likely strike it down. Or, there is another plan to approach this from another direction that won’t attract as much public condemnation but will grant the state the same powers. That is how it usually goes.