How did politicians deny universal human rights in Canada?



“The father of the modern human rights system is John Humphrey.” –Nelson Mandela

New Brunswick original John Humphrey Was the author of the first draft of 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.. Mandela’s statement should not mislead us to conclude that the idea of ​​human rights is a recent invention. It is not. The international system is.

The UN Declaration stems from its historical context, World War II, when Hitler’s genocide science was its most prominent new feature. The anti-humanistic national ideology expressed in the word “science” was the female used for genetic identity groups.

Long-established’Law of the countryThe “Christian strike” was not enough to stop the Nazi Germany breach. Genetics has defeated ethics and denied its obligations to mankind within its own boundaries. The international community will do what each country does not do.

The declaration was inadequate in my heart. It was humanism, still under the threat of Scientism, trying to regain the religious sense of the dignity of life, but without resorting to the motive of obedience to God.It certainly recovered Nuremberg Code, An important methodology for informed consent for the scientific community, but does not establish its safe foundation in God-given humanity.

It is important to note that Canada’s human rights efforts did not begin in 1948.Canada’s commitment to global human rights Union document. NS Canadian historian John Robson Right to legal proceedings, legal presumption of innocence up to proof of guilt, responsible government, property rights, freedom of speech, free association law, all Magna Carta (1215). It is also encapsulated in Canada’s official motto. From sea to seaExcerpt from Psalm 72: 8 Of the Bible, reflecting the Christian beliefs of the federal father.

However, since 1968, the Left has seized human rights as its own exclusive project. It is its belief that it is a kind of humanitarian civil religion in Europe and North America, denying the historical (especially Christian) understanding of “freedom under the law”. Along the origin of the sexual revolution, it rewrites history and defame its historical precedent as an oppressor.Evidence for it Continue mounting..

Most notable is the way human rights are defended in terms of “group rights,” rather than the freedom that arises from moral behaviour. While it outperforms the defense of minority groups, it underestimates the ultimate minority, the legitimacy of the individual. See my discussion here..

And instead of freedom under the law, the political left appeals to what Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke called the “state of nature.” This is the autonomy of non-obligatory human choice. This idea of ​​humanity is no longer rooted in marriage or traditional family and lacks the grammar of moral and political behavior. It helps the system to be internationalist. Not only is it no longer bound by national law, it acts as if the state is an obstacle to “progress.”

Backed by technology, our elite is now governed by what liberal leader Justin Trudeau called. Postnationalism.. The purpose is to appoint bureaucrats to check nationalism within the paralyzed global regulatory framework: Sustainable Development Goals Of the United Nations Agenda 2030.

Postnationalism is cut off from both ends. It strengthens personal and social rights (through a surge in “identity”) while minimizing “form of state”. Most noticeable with planned declining birthrate and mass immigration. It establishes cultural Marxism by “a long and slow march on the left”. As globalism declines within Canada’s political and civil society, including education, science, and medical institutions, it also undermines the very institutions that enable freedom and autonomy.

Cross the Rubicon

The extreme reaction to COVID-19 has only attracted public attention. The government’s refusal of the rights and freedoms of the Charter due to the blockade of vaccination obligations and the application of passports and the recent abolition of the Nuremberg Code was brought about by the order of the Head of Government. But most striking is the ideologically motivated public sector and the enthusiastic compliance of large corporations with global rather than local relationships.

Nowhere is this more obvious in the recently aired federal election debate. There was no party leader who opposed the idea of ​​compulsory vaccination and vaccine passports. They clearly contradict “inclusion” and “diversity” and divide Canadians into those with and without world human rights, but no political leader has said that they are non-Canadian.

This is because these leaders, especially Justin Trudeau, describe people who “resist” the vaccine as “far right.”It’s a gas lamp, the most worried group is black As McLean’s magazine points out, the indigenous community, and the typical Canadian vaccine repellent, A 42-year-old Ontario woman voting for liberals..

The protesting group does so in the name of freedom. Freedom does not fit into the internationalist system.

Danger is real and exists.Canada has no free coverage, rights and freedoms have been illegally suspended, and the impact of absurd computerized health policy implementation R0 The score led the majority to support unvaccinated ghettoization for “health” reasons. Rubycon that citizens justify in their hearts the government’s ability to deny the privacy and autonomy of all citizens, freedom of movement and association, guarantee of fairness, and the government’s ability to discriminate, especially with respect to everyday access. It seems likely that this is the moment. Goods and services.

As Naomi Wolf has Written correctly, QR code It also uses slippery slopes for introduction Social credit system Like the Communist Party of China. God helps us.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Scott masson

Scott Masson is an intellectual and associate professor of English literature. For more information on Masson, please visit and