F.A.Q.
Q: Isn't
it true that you're just a nicotine addict that is p.o.'d
because he can't smoke anywhere he pleases now?
Q: Don't you know that tobacco companies
are scum?
Q: Do you really believe that smoking
isn't bad for you?
Q: But don't you know that you are
a burden on the health care system, and I shouldn't have
to pay for your filthy habit?
Q: Can I come to your house and spray
cat-urine in your face, and see how you like it?
Q: Can I send you an e-mail and let
you know how I feel about this?
Q: Don't you know that you can't
win? You're in a minority!
Q: What about Heather Crowe? She
is dying from Lung Cancer because she was exposed to second
hand smoke at work! Have you no heart?
Q: Why should I believe you?
Q: So, just because cigarettes have
been banned in public places, you think that fascists are
taking over?
Q: Isn't it true that you're just
a nicotine addict that is p.o.'d because he can't smoke
anywhere he pleases now?
No. I'm not fighting for the ability to smoke anywhere
I please. I'm actually for most aspects of public
smoking restrictions. I don't think that non-smokers should
have to be subjected to my smoke in the vast majority
of public places.
However, I am on the side of liberty and rights of the
individual. The anti-smokers (not the non-smokers) see no
problem in trampling on people's liberties and freedoms
in order to push their own selfish agenda. I happen to think
that it's right that people don't smoke in theatres, on
buses, in malls or any place where accomodations can not
reasonably be made to keep second hand smoke away from non-smokers.
Health risks aside, it's just plain rude. Most smokers feel
the same way. This is why there was relatively little opposition
to fair and balanced public smoking restrictions when they
began coming into play - fair restriction such as no-smoking
in malls, except in pre-designated smoking areas, etc.
However, anyone with just a little common sense should
be able to see that there is absolutely NO justifiable reason
why owners of public places can not be allowed to accommodate
smokers if they so choose, while at the same time protecting
non-smokers - especially when the vast majority of the public
would have no problem with this. It is only a select few
who actively wish to push extreme public smoking restrictions.
Ask non-smokers if they would mind if malls were allowed
to provide smoking areas for smokers inside the mall if
they could be assured that they would still have full use
of the mall and not come into contact with cigarette smoke
and the majority will tell you that they wouldn't care.
Ask them: If there would remain a real supply of non-smoking
bars in the city, would they mind if some bars be allowed
to cater to smoking clientele if they so chose? The answer
you will most often hear is: No, I wouldn't mind.
In fact, technology exists today, (called air current,
or air curtain technology) and is available at relatively
low costs, that would allow a table full of smokers to sit
three feet away from a table full of non-smokers, no solid
walls separating them, and the non-smokers would not come
into contact with second hand smoke. Other relatively inexpensive
ventilation systems can actually raise the air quality in
a large room full of many smokers to standards well within
currently accepted EPA levels. In a downtown bar, in any
major city, you could probably even install a cheap, poorly
efficient, forced air & filter ventilation system and,
even in a room full of a crowd of smokers, easily increase
the air quality to levels which surpassed the air quality
on the street right outside the front door! However, these
options are not allowed under the terms of the smoking by-law
in Ottawa.
So why the all out restrictions when only a very, very
few demand it? And, feasible air-cleaning options that would
make everyone happy are restricted for seemingly arbitrary
reasons? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A HEALTH ISSUE! It is
a project of social engineering!
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Don't you know that tobacco
companies are scum?
Of course I do. They have proven time and time again that
they are liars and cheats and would sell out their own mothers
for a quick buck. That does nothing to invalidate any arguments.
I think the same thing about big-pharma. Welcome to the
new millennium, let me introduce you to big-pharma! They're
the 'new' tobacco companies!
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Do you really believe that
smoking isn't bad for you?
Of course I believe that smoking is bad for you. A lot
of things are bad for you. I also know that exactly how
bad smoking really is has been grossly overstated!
I don't think there is a rational human on the planet, free
from any major bias, who wouldn't draw the same conclusion
if they did their own digging and found out for themselves.
I'm also confident that exactly how bad for someone the
average person believes smoking is has a lot more to do
with hysteria and propaganda than it does with fact.
Yes, smoking is bad for you. If you smoke you are taking
a health risk that you wouldn't be taking if you didn't
smoke. SHS may be bad for you but nobody really
knows yet. And so far the best evidence we have says that
any risk that might be associated with it is minimal at
best - much less in fact than MANY things that most non-smokers
have no problems subjecting themselves to. A non-smoker
actually has a higher risk of getting cancer from living
with a pet bird than they do from living with a smoker,
for instance! So why the hysteria over SHS? - BECAUSE IF
SHS ISN'T A RUTHLESS KILLER THE ANTI-SMOKING LOBBY LOSES
100% OF ITS MORAL ARGUMENT FOR OVERLY EXTENSIVE PUBLIC SMOKING
BANS!
Think about it: Even if tomorrow we found out with absolute
certainty that cigarettes were actually far, far, far more
deadly than even the most militant anti-smoker had ever
believed, but at the same time also found out with absolute
certainty that they were only harmful to smokers and posed
no risk whatsoever to anyone who didn't actually smoke ALL
MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR TOTAL SMOKING BANS WOULD DISAPEAR.
If the only people that cigarettes are harming are smokers
then there is no moral argument for public health. It becomes
an issue of "I just don't like the smell."
You see, in this society, we can't remove people's freedoms
or force them to change their behavior just because we don't
agree with what they do or it inconveniences us in some
minor way. We can't even do those things, in most cases,
if it's a health issue! The only time we can is if it is
a major health issue that affects a significant portion
of the population. Many people are sensitive to, and have
health issues with, a number of different things - certain
animals, perfumes and other personal grooming products,
cleaning products etc. But, we don't ban those! Pet stores
in shopping malls aren't illegal, but many people have serious
health issues with pet dander and bird feathers. We're allowed
to wear perfumes and deodorant in public even though some
people are adversely affected. One of my neighbors is anaphylactic,
if a bee stings her, the odds are pretty good that she will
die. Yet, Agriculture Canada keeps a bank of about 40 or
50 live beehives not 3 blocks away from my house.
So, if SHS is not made a MAJOR health issue then public
smoking bans become impossible. At all costs the public
must be made to believe that SHS has serious and widespread
detrimental health implications for the general public -
no matter what the data actually shows! If that can't be
done then the anti-smoking lobby loses their justification;
loses their funding; and the entire movement shrivels up
and dies. And, the corpse of the anti-smoking lobby is called:
reasonability!
Use your common sense! Don't trust blind facts from other
people who have an agenda. APPEAL TO YOUR OWN SENSIBILITES.
Remember, it's only in the last few years that smoking has
stopped in public places. When I was a child a MUCH higher
percentage of the population smoked than does today and
you could smoke just about anywhere - in movie theatres,
during the movies, at sporting events, in malls, etc. etc.
Now, with all that immense and constant exposure to second
hand smoke, how many people have you heard of, throughout
your entire lifetime, who you can say died from second hand
smoke? Really? Now, how many people have you heard of that
have died in car accidents? Well if you are in the VAST,
VAST majority of people, then you either answered 'none'
or perhaps 'one', to the first question (and if you answered
one, you actually can't demonstrate that those people died
from SHS.) But, you likely answered at least four or five
and as many as ten or so, to the second question. So, what
does your own sensibilities tell you?
Well, if you're a rational person, they should be telling
you to be MUCH more worried about going anywhere near a
car than going anywhere near second hand smoke.
[Back To Questions List]
Q: But don't you know that you
are a burden on the health care system, and I shouldn't
have to pay for your filthy habit?
Don't fool yourself! Smokers subsidize YOUR health-care,
not the other way around! Where exactly do you think my
$8+ per pack on a product whose retail, pre-tax cost is
under $4.00 goes exactly? If a person smokes a pack a day
(what the average smoker smokes) in this country, they are
paying out somwhere in the neighbourhood of at least an
extra $1,500.00 per year in taxes, over and above their
income tax and any other tax that a non-smoker might pay.
If the anti-smokers are right, then statistically, over
the course of my life, I'll be spending MUCH less time in
a hospital and receiving medical care than you will. I'm
going to die of a massive heart-attack when I'm in my fifties
and still in otherwise relatively good health, remember?
You're going to spend an extra 25 years on this planet popping
pills and getting hips replaced!
Along with this, of course, is the idea that if the anti-smoker's
numbers are right, as well as smokers making much more of
a contribution to government coffers than than non-smokers,
since we die early, we're not only less of a burden on the
health-care system, but also much less of a burden on the
social security system as well. So, IF the anti-smokers
are correct in their numbers and thinking then, as a smoker,
I contribute much more to the health-care system than you,
as a non-smoker does, AND I, as a smoker, withdraw much
less. Smokers put more in and take less out!
On top of this, one has to realize that the government
currently spends all of the revenue generated from smoking
and still manages to spend themselves into a hole. The more
smokers quit smoking, the more tax increases have to be
made in order to make up that lost revenue. Governments
can only increase cigarette taxes so much at a time or else
horrible things like black markets and crime activity start
emerging. Also, raise it too much at once and cigarette
sales will plummet even further, further reducing the amount
of tax revenue gained. So how do you think the government
makes up the shortfall? By raising YOUR taxes! In essence,
every time a smoker quits smoking, YOUR taxes go up!
I'd be very, very careful about vocalizing this argument
in the future. With the current state of Canada health-care,
if every smoker in Canada quit tomorrow, the chances are
good that it would likely deal a death blow to your precious
government assisted health-care system. In fact, the next
time you go to the emergency room of your local hospital
because you sustain some sort of injury, before you leave,
you should walk outside to where the smokers have gathered
to have their cigarettes and thank them for providing you
with your healthcare!
And, BE NICE TO ME, or I'll quit smoking!
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Can I come to your house and
spray cat-urine in your face, and see how you like it?
I've actually had this asked of me! And, the answer is:
NO! You can not come to my house and do this.
However, if you know of a bar where the owner allows this
sort of behavior and you want to get together with a bunch
of your friends and spray cat-urine around the room, it's
none of my business. I'll just stay away from that bar.
Since I'm sure there isn't much of a demand for this sort
of thing, I'm sure that I'll still have a good selection
of bars that I can go to where I don't have to worry about
being sprayed with cat-urine. If it turns out that there
is such a demand that EVERY bar suddenly becomes a cat-urine
bar, then I suppose I'll just have to give up bars, or open
my own cat-urine free bar, or invest in or otherwise support
someone who wants to open a cat-urine free bar. Since, if
everybody else seems to want this, except me and maybe a
few other people, then what right do we have to shove our
wants down the throats of the majority?
You can be sure that I will not come to where you and your
friends are spraying cat-urine around and say: "Ok!
I'm here now! Everyone must appease me and stop spraying
cat-urine!"
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Can I send you an e-mail and
let you know how I feel about this?
Yes. I encourage intelligent opinions and questions from
all sides regarding this. The easiest way is to use the
on-line form. You can get to it by clicking here.
BE FOREWARNED THOUGH:
1) Unless you specifically ask me not to, I reserve the
right to publish the contents of your letter, in any manner,
and by the use of any medium which I see fit.
2) I will not publish your full name, address, e-mail or
any other personal information unless you specifically ask
me to, or specifically grant me permission to publish such
details in your e-mail.
3) I will not use your e-mail address for any other purpose,
other than to e-mail you a direct and personal response
to your letter. Your e-mail address will not be sold or
given to any third party.
4) Threats will be ignored. I will not waste my time with
brainless troglodytes. And, if your letter contains threats,
especially threats of violence, I will most likely stop
reading, delete it, and move on as you would have already
proven yourself to be a mindless knuckle walker, and the
odds that anything meaningful or intelligent would be contained
in the remainder of the letter would be minimal at best.
5) Because of time limitations, I can make no promises
about being able to respond to your e-mail. I try my best
to read all legitimate e-mails, but I just don't have the
time to respond to everyone.
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Don't you know that you can't
win? You're in a minority!
First of all, I don't pick and choose my battles based
on what I feel I can and can not win. I pick and choose
my battles based on what I feel is right.
Second of all - It's the other way around. The anti-smokers
can't win. They are fighting a futile battle. I'm just trying
to do my part to bring about their inevitable defeat as
quickly as possible in order to save as much pain and hardship
as possible.
History shows us, time and again, that puritanism always
eventually collapses under its own weight. It grows and
grows until it reaches a critical mass and then it explodes
and eliminates itself.
Do you think you're going to get smokers to stop smoking?
Do you think it's going to just eventually go away? Certain
societies have been trying to get people to stop smoking
since the act was first invented. They used to kill smokers
in some places, they used to torture and beat them. Yet,
around one billion people on this planet still smoke. LOOK
INTO IT! Do you actually believe that this is something
new? Do you actually believe that in the last 30 years or
so medical science has just finally figured out that smoking
is bad and we've decided to finally do something about it
- that it's all entirely due to our modern wisdom? This
has been going on, off and on, for more than 5 centuries
at least!
So as the crusade against tobacco grows and gains momentum
and power, what do you think is going to happen? Well, it
will likely play out exactly the same way every other puritanical
movement ever has. The restrictions on smoking will get
tighter and tighter. More rights and freedoms will be removed,
until eventually there will be a push for all out prohibition.
When this happens a violent, criminal underground market
(this is already happening) will form. We will see tobacco
"speakeasies" popping up (already happening too
- they're commonly refered to as "boozecans").
There will be special departments of law enforcement developed
and trained (this is already happening as well) to deal
only with tobacco prohibition issues. There will be police
raids on establishments and private citizens and their homes,
that are suspected of storing or manufacturing tobacco related
products (Already happening). But, when people finally refuse
to take anymore, it will end. If it is allowed to go that
far, it most likely will end in a catastrophic clash. It
took the stock market crash and the great depression to
end the previous era of puritanism in the U.S. And, it took
world war two to end the era of puritanism in Germany.
Canadians already got a small glimpse of this in the early
1990's when the anti-smoking lobby missed their guess and,
before people were adequately desensitized, effectively
tried to prohibit tobacco by increasing taxes so much, all
at once, that nobody could really afford to buy them. An
underground economy formed almost overnight - the lingering
effects of which the Canadian economy is still feeling to
this day. The taxes were quickly repealed and the anti-smoking
lobby regrouped and began their incremental encroachment
on liberties and freedoms once more.
And, if you want to know how most members of this puritanical
movement think, think about this: After the Canadian government
was forced to repeal the tobacco tax in the early 90's -
when the Canadian people spoke out and forced their will
upon the government - one prominent government official
who supported the anti-smoking movement at that time was
asked by a news reporter what he thought about having to
repeal the tax. His response was this:
"I think it sends a bad message to Canadians.
I think it tells them that if they don't like a certain
law, all they have to do is complain enough and the law
will change."
Hmmm... isn't that called "Democracy"?
It's all just history repeating itself yet again. If you
would like to open your eyes to this sort of thing, I suggest
you read: "Generations" by William Strauss and
Neil Howe.
[Back To Questions List]
Q: What about Heather Crowe? She
is dying from Lung Cancer because she was exposed to second
hand smoke at work! Have you no heart?
Heather Crowe and her family have my deepest sympathies.
I am deeply sorry for her situation. It is always a tragedy
when such an illness and misfortune befall any person. I
am also saddened by the way this poor woman has been manipulated
and exploited by the anti-smoking lobby.
Heather Crowe's case however does not give us cause to
abandon truth and reason. It must be taken into account,
that when Heather Crowe states:
"In 2002, I was diagnosed with inoperable, terminal
lung cancer. My oncologist, my surgeon and the Ontario Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board (which has awarded me full compensation
for disability acquired at work) have all asserted that
my lung cancer came from the only risk factor for lung cancer
that I have - exposure to second-hand smoke at work."
She is effectively claiming that she has never in her life
come into contact with: 1) Asbestos, (which is still found
in a lot of older houses, cars and buildings - Before the
1970s it was EVERYWHERE... in Heather Crowe's 40 year career
as waitress, I don't know HOW in the hell they could rule
out asbestos as a risk factor... they certainly wont tell
anyone how.) 2) Radon. (High Radon levels are rare, but
ruling out any exposure to Radon over the lifetime of a
57 year old woman would be close to impossible.) 3) She
has basically never breathed city air. There are about 40
other known risk factors that, of course, would need to
be ruled out before any statement of certainty could be
made. But that doesn't stop the anti-smoking lobby from
making statements of certainty!
There is a lot of deception taking place with this case.
These are some important factors to keep in mind:
1) There is not one single documented case in the history
of Canada of any single person ever dieing from exposure
to second hand smoke. If Heather Crowe does sadly pass away
from her illness, (She is fortunately, currently in
remission.) she will likely become the very first person
to be listed as a second hand smoke related death in Canada.
2) It has been frequently claimed by the anti-smoking lobby,
and Mrs. Crowe herself, that Heather Crowe has been diagnosed
with a 'Smoker's tumor.' It is FACT that there is
NO SUCH THING as a "smoker's tumor"! This
IS NOT a medical term and NO reputable health professional
will claim otherwise. There is NO type of lung cancer tumor
that ONLY occurs in smokers. Have YOU ever heard the term
"Smoker's Tumor" before you heard about this case?
It is my suspicion that Heather Crowe was "fed"
this term by the anti-smoking lobby. It is my opinion that
it was likely invented, or purposefully used, for the specific
purpose of tying Heather Crowe's condition to smoking in
the public psyche because the anti-smoking lobby KNOWS that
they have NO reputable medical data that can do the same.
In fact, you can go to any major on-line search engine right
now and do a search on "Smoker's tumor" and you
will see that almost, if not all, results returned are stories
relating to this one case! HEATHER CROWE IS THE FIRST PERSON
IN MEDICAL HISTORY TO BE DIAGNOSED WITH A "SMOKER'S
TUMOR"! The term is used as nothing more than an outright
ploy to subconsciously link Heather Crowe's condition with
smoking in the public psyche!
3) Even though it is claimed that Heather Crowe had NO
other risk factors, she apparently did spend a significant
amount of her working life working in high cancer rate mining
areas.
4) It is being claimed by the anti-smoking lobbyists that
Heather Crowe was awarded compensation because of her exposure
to second hand smoke. THIS IS ENTIRLEY DISENGENUOS! It is
being publicized in such a way to deliberately make it seem
that she was awarded workman's compensation on the grounds
that her cancer WAS CAUSED SOLELY by exposure to second
hand smoke. The court actually ruled that SHS may
have been ONE OF MANY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. Heather
Crowe, during the course of her abnormally long career as
a waitress would have assuredly come into much contact with
a number of other workplace hazards such as: cooking, toxic
cleaning agents, certain types of furniture, construction
materials, & equipment out-gassing., etc.
5) It is documented fact that Heather Crowe had publicly
stated that she was going to die from lung cancer, which
she had developed as a result of second hand smoke, BEFORE
the results of her biopsy had been known. When the results
of her biopsy did come in, it was alleged by Crowe and the
anti-smoking lobby that the biopsy did confirm the previous
claims. But, the results of her biopsy HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE
PUBLIC. And, as such, no independent medical professional
is able to scrutinize the validity of these claims!
It is also important to note that the vast majority of
non-inconclusive studies show no significant health risks
from YEARS of exposure to second hand smoke. Including this
39 year study of California residents and this
37 year study of German airline flight attendants. Apparently
Heather Crowe's 2 doctors, through an act of proclamation
alone, have been able to do what thousands of medical research
scientists and millions of dollars worth of research have
so far failed to do - PROVE A POSITIVE AND SIGNIFICANT LINK
BETWEEN SHS AND CANCER!
Again, I urge an appeal to YOUR OWN sensibilities! People
have been smoking in bars for hundreds of years. Think about
all of the staff working in every bar and restaurant across
this country, in every city, in every town, over the past
40 years. Think about all of the exposure to SHS! Where
are the armies of people coming forward who are suffering
from similar circumstances? So far, we have ONE SINGLE CASE
and the only thing that positively ties Heather Crowe's
condition to SHS is nothing more than a proclamation!
The truth of the matter is that nobody actually knows for
certain what caused Heather Crowe to develop lung cancer.
Anyone who says they do IS LYING TO YOU, or doesn't fully
understand the situation themselves.
I'd be willing to bet good money that more than one person
in the anti-smoking community are super pissed that Heather
Crowe went into remission and failed to pass away at the
original time estimated by her doctors. I'm sure there are
some anti-smokers out there who are waiting with baited
breath for news of Heather Crowe's passing. They've milked
this poor woman's story for everything they could, and now
every extra day that Heather Crowe lives, is another day
they have to wait before they can escalate their campaign
and start milking the tragedy of her passing with their
posthumous propoganda campaigns!
Here are some links with info. from the other side of the
Heather Crowe story:
http://www.geocities.com/defendliberty2004/heathercrowe.html
http://www.pubcoalition.com/html/articles/bulletin12.html
[Back To Questions List]
Q: Why should I believe you?
You shouldn't! You shouldn't believe me or ANYONE else!
You should find out for yourself and form your own educated,
informed, rational opinion. I have an agenda and I could
be lying to you, or I could be so biased because of what
I "want" to be the truth, that, while I am sincere
in my beliefs, I may be subconsciously discarding facts
that don't support my position and adding weight to insignificant
facts that do. But, you know what? EVERYONE ELSE COULD BE
DOING THE SAME THING! NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE!!!
Whenever you hear someone say: "Smoking is good!"
That person likely has an agenda and has an interest in
getting you to believe a certain thing.
Whenever you hear someone say: "Smoking is bad!"
That person likely has an agenda, and has an interest in
getting you to believe a certain thing.
You need to form your own opinions. And, you can't do that
simply by absorbing facts that people hand you! You need
to make direct observations from your every day life. You
need to solicit the opinions and more importantly: testimony,
of trusted family members, friends, and community figures.
When someone, WHOEVER IT IS, hands you a 'fact', or a figure,
or a 'study' or a piece of data, you need to understand
that the item which they just handed you is 100%
useless to you in helping to form your opinion,
until you can adequately question its validity and significance.
You need to ask yourself things like: What is the source
of this information? Is there a reason to suspect they have
a strong agenda or a bias? How was this information gathered?
Is anyone criticizing this information? If so, who are they,
and what are their arguments? etc. etc.
Then, you need to take all this information, apply some
critical thinking skills, rules of logic and rationality,
and form an opinion.
If I hand you a statistic, or make a statement, it's of
little relevance on its own until you fully investigate
its veracity!
If Health Canada hands you a statistic, or makes a statement,
it's of little relevance on its own until you fully investigate
its veracity!
If anyone else hands you a statistic, or makes a statement,
it's of little relevance on its own until you fully investigate
its veracity!
Think about it for a minute. REALLY think about it: Do
you really know that smoking is bad for you? Or do
you just believe it is because that's what you've heard
time, and time, and time, and time again, over and over?
And, you've been handed statistics, without knowing where
they came from, or how they were obtained, over and over
and over. Have you really seen overwhelming evidence of
it in your personal life? Have you really experienced the
ravages and horrors of widespread death, disease and suffering
that you would expect from the evil that smoking has been
made out to be? Does the current public opinion of smoking
gel with what you have personally witnessed and experienced
in your own life?
THINK FOR YOURSELF! Don't trust the government, or anyone
else, including me, to give you the truth. It is more likely
than not that none of us have any interest in you knowing
the truth! It is more likely than not that we all have an
interest in you knowing only what we want you to believe
is the truth!
[Back To Questions List]
Q: So, just because cigarettes
have been banned in public places, you think that fascists
are taking over?
No, of course not. I believe that it is merely one symptom
of a definite rise in a puritanical, and an authoritarian
mentality taking place in this society. And, I belive that
left to fester, the ultimate end of this is likely to be
an all-out fascist like take-over. What is going on in our
country right now is what fascism looks like when it first
pops out of the womb. If you look at any fascist movement
(that's fascist with a small 'f', not capital 'F'. there
were fascists long before this century, they just weren't
called fascists.) and trace its roots back far enough, you
will find that it, in most cases, grew from the roots of
puritanism.
I'm saying that if we were indeed on course towards a fascist,
or fascist like society - the beginnings of it would most
assuredly look exactly like what we are seeing today!
Every day we move more towards this end. It starts with
sin taxes levied against the least popular, yet still significant
'sins' and it escalates from there. Just take a look around
you! Now that smoking has all but been defeated, there is
talk of starting to put sin taxes on junk-food... just how
they started with cigarettes. And, certain lawyers are talking
about suing junk-food companies for making people fat. Just
what happened with cigarettes. Where do you think it goes
from there?
The Canadian government, at relatively the same time as
the smoking bans started coming in, began passing laws dictating
what kinds of ideas you can express in public. Say the wrong
thing in public in this country, and you go to jail! There
are now books that are banned in this country! Anyone trying
to bring them into the country will have them confiscated!
Radio and television are being censored because of ideas
that are being expressed. Stations are losing their licenses
because they are speaking in a manner which the government
has decreed inappropriate for the canadian citizen to be
exposed to.
And, this is all happening at the same time! All over western
society! All you have to do is crack a few history books
to realize that this exact thing has happened before, time
and time, and time again. But, people refuse to take a lesson
from history... and as such we are doomed to repeat it.
History shows us that when this sort of movement begins,
it doesn't stop until someone either stops it, or it implodes
on itself. If it implodes, many, many people get hurt...
they always do. If someone stops it, the longer they wait,
the more injury occurs. It's always the case.
So! Stop it now! Protest! Make your voice heard!
[Back To Questions List]
|
