Opinion, Politics

The recent talk of Abortion

Abortion.

Some believe its a woman’s well-given right, others say it is murder.

If you attend any women’s march you will 100% see advocates for making abortion legal at any point in a pregnancy. No restrictions at all. This is the case in Canada, if you are a woman and feel like killing your baby, you can! Its protected by the Canada health act. Whereas there are some restrictions for second/third trimesters in individual states.

Some of the reasons people support abortion:

  • They are ill-prepared. The baby will not grow up “Correctly”. (Admitting that they will be a bad parent).
  • They don’t like the father of the child, and can’t live with him.
  • They already have kids and can’t afford another (Related to not being prepared.)
  • They were raped.
  • Or the mother/Mother and child are at risk of death.
  • Or they just don’t see it as life. “It’s just a clump of cells”…

All of these arguments can quickly be put to rest. They all fall down to you not being prepared to have a kid. One of the most significant sets of advice for not having to go through with this is to just not have sex. At least, use a contraceptive. They are often free at health centers.

If you do not like the father, why did you have sex with him? The left has indoctrinated youth through television and media that sex is a physical exchange. We see this is drag shows, Pride Parades, over sexualizing magazines, jokes, etc. We need to come together and reteach traditional principles that sex isn’t just a physical exchange. That sex is a life-changing decision, you have the literal chance of creating life. 25% women in the USA will have an abortion by the time they are 45. 1% of women get abortions due to rape and incest.  A tiny percent is for when the mother’s life is endangered.  The last two reasons should be the only reasons to get an abortion.

Many religious groups and foster care placements will gladly take any child. The child living and at least growing up is much better than killing it. Having the child live, and giving birth to it is at least giving the chance for it to do something great. Though, if the mother is about to die, and expected to care for the child, there goes 50% of the child’s support system and an innocent life. If a woman is raped, she shouldn’t be reminded of it constantly unless she wants to be. In that case, It should be her choice.

The last argument, calling the baby a clump of cells merely is scientifically wrong, and immoral. Even though it isn’t as developed as you does not mean it has no potential. To define what the baby is we need to define when life starts. Is it the heartbeat? Brainwaves? How about the first time it kicks? All of these are wrong because they all create a false barrier/narrative. Example: If consciousness is what defines life, can I stab a person in a coma? Many believe, and I agree that life starts at the conception of the child. To kill another human just because it’s a burden to you is absolutely disgusting. To think that your wants are more important than somebody’s needs is wrong. 

It’s bizarre that the left is stereotypically the “Humanitarian” side of the room but when it comes to the unborn they completely flip sides. Accepting the killing of the most innocent in any country.

Opinion, Politics

Sexual Assault

Sexual Assault.

Sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape have all been hot topics lately of the left. With court cases against innocent men such as Brett Kavanaugh, only for higher power in the Democrats, or included in marches for women’s rights. The leftist public seems to use these three terms interchangeably.

Many can agree that rape is an unforgivable crime. The people who commit it should be killed or incarcerated. However sexual assault does not have a clear definition right now. Roughly it’s just the occurrence of any sexual behavior without explicit consent. This could mean rape or sexual harassment, fondling, etc. Sexual assault has been imprinted as the umbrella term for many specific situations. This leads to a lot of confusion, and misconceptions about people.

Apparently, a vast majority of people don’t want to be heard, victims are too scared they might be killed if their voice is heard. Unfortunately, they can’t go to court and get justice… Until there is some form of attention involved. I’m not saying that every sexual assault case is a lie for attention, though false accusations are on the rise. Some of these women, yes, are absolutely terrified to speak out because they’ve had their life taken advantage of, but “A vast majority, definitely not.

The #MeToo Movement is still in progress. The idea behind this movement is to stop sexual violence altogether. However, the attempts of this fantastic goal have been weak. Any person can go online to Twitter, make an account, tell a complete lie, slap a #METOO on it and there you go, you’re part of a group. You’ll obtain some remorse and empathy from people you don’t know and have helped a cause set out with no purpose. The Me Too movement has actually made some women feel disgusted, making them think of their sexual assault stories from a while ago. It’s done nothing but make them resurface the crimes committed against them.

One question that has been speculating lately- Should there be a more significant penalty for false accusation if they lead to the ruin of an individual? Right now, if you are suspected of falsely accusing an individual of rape, you could be charged with “wasting police time” or “Perverting the court of justice”.

If these social justice warriors really wanted to perform justice, they would find the real victims of these crimes, and help get them into a court. Looking into statistics of this, they seem very skewed due to the interchangeability of the terms. I couldn’t find any reputable sources on numbers for North America. However, what all of the pages I visited had in common were South Africa’s rape statistics. The average South African woman has a 40% chance to be raped. With only 1/9 rape cases reported. Why the hell aren’t we focusing on this, and instead of making lies about young adults on college campuses?

If you or anyone you know has been sexually assaulted contact the police immediately, find the perpetrators name, and get justice so more people don’t get hurt. Stay informed on these terms, they may change. In this world, we need to focus on the issues that matter at large and address them accordingly with due process, order, and actual evidence.

 

Opinion, Politics

Canada- Stricter Gun Laws?

     The Liberal government has eluded to implementing stricter gun laws in Canada. They’ve looked at recent events such as the mass shooting in Danforth, the attack at a Tim Hortons in London, or the shooting in Fredericton, and have thought to ban everything. Not just handguns but every “assault rifle” (Which doesn’t have a clear definition.) as well.

     In Canada, we don’t have a right to bear arms. We aren’t allowed to carry any weapon for self-defense, though we often don’t need to. On average, Canadian living standards are much higher than of the U S. This is mainly due to population, government spending in healthcare, lower suicide rate, and other factors. In the U. S, approximately 300,000 lives are saved a year from the use of firearms. However, there are approximately 36,000 deaths involving guns, Majority suicides, and unknown causes. What’s leftover is 11,000 gun-related homicides. Handguns, not rifles contribute to the majority of those. (Which is quite odd because the left will often demonize the AR-15/variants).

     Banning handguns in Canada will not solve any issues in regarding overall gun crime. The weapon in the Fredericton shooting was not a handgun, but a rifle obtained legally. There are about 31 guns: 100 people in Canada. The government shouldn’t take everyone’s guns away because an extreme minority decide to misuse theirs. During the tragic event in Danforth, 2 people lost their lives and 17 more injured. After the perpetrator had done this, he had shot himself in the head. Later on, in an interview with his parents, his parents claim he was mentally ill. They also said they had to send him to get psychiatric help because he carved into his face with a razor blade, along with saying other graphic comments. The perpetrator had no license for this handgun and most likely got it from his brother; who was later busted with 33 illegally owned firearms. They were all seized by the police in 2017. If somebody wants to shoot up a group of people and not get caught, they will use unregistered weapons.

     Forsay we were in Texas. If anyone in the crowd of people getting shot at had a pistol concealed, could they have saved lives? It was too late before the police got there. We in Canada should not strictly rely on the police to protect us. Approximately 140 people die from gun homicides per year in Canada, Could we save those people if we were armed? That also leaves about 520 suicides a year from guns. All of this just shows we need to get guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, not strip them from every day, law-abiding citizens. There needs to be more money put into background checks, check-ups, etc so we can tell who should and shouldn’t have a gun. When will the left realize that guns don’t kill people? People will kill people using any means they can. It is much easier to stab somebody with a kitchen knife then it is to get a firearms license and go through training.

(If you know anyone who is suicidal please reach out to doctors, do research, try to help them https://suicideprevention.ca/need-help/.)

Politics

Free Speech in Canada

   An opinionated Essay.

    Canada doesn’t have any documentation in the constitution regarding free speech. We do however have The right of “Freedom of expression.” As a Canadian, we can express any: thought, belief, or opinion we please without being harassed. However recent documents have been passed to protect minority groups from “Hate speech.”Hate speech, defined by Merriam Webster is “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people. To understand this definition we must first understand what hatred actually means. Defined, hatred is the “intense dislike or ill will.” So, If anyone were to express any opinion that is not positive, or that is “bitter”  about the groups listed in Bill C-16, they would be committing hate speech. This is why we do not have free speech in our constitution, can we really express any view we want in Canada?

     Protesting, in the charter of rights is a very crucial part of the Canadian belief, though if you were to protest against an identifiable group: “colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” You would be committing a hate crime. (up to 2 years in prison.) I believe that we should still be able to debate/protest these topics such as Gender expression and identity. There is evidence on both sides, but one side often shuts the other down, and now with this bill passed it is virtually impossible to have a protest/public debate against these topics.

     The left also proposed a bill (89) in which if your child believes they are not the sex they were born, you must give them treatment as needed, or the government can intervene within the child to parent relationship. This seems completely insane, though it was passed. If somebody were to try to oppose this bill, they are instantly shut down because gender expression is protected under hate speech laws, and will be perceived as “Transphobic, Sexist”, and whatever else they can come up with.

     As I write this, just because I have a different opinion then what is taught in schools, there will be people either confused or offended. It’s not about being able to insult black people because they are black, doing so is just wrong to the mass majority of people, however, everyone is an equal individual. Anyone is allowed to have an opinion, as long as they don’t physically harm people or say they are about to. This is however about how somebody who is just as much an individual as you are, has protection over the law if they are insulted. They can use identity politics more, and more. I Have the right as an individual to criticize and have opinions (Positive, or Negative) about anyone I please. To have that simple right taken away is such a big problem. If everyone is truly equal, then the idea of using identity in politics and law is morally unjust.

     The opposition, however, believes that these groups are in need of some sort of help from years of oppression and aggression against them, that this bill shows that the liberal government cares more about everyone, and is as inclusive as possible. They create “Safe Spaces”(In Schools) for people who don’t want to hear other opinions that aren’t their own.  This is absolutely terrible. We need to hear other perspectives to form our own. That’s what being inclusive should mean! Inclusiveness is a great thing that I fully support. However, when the liberal government singles out these minorities, uses them to gain votes and then shuts down the right, that is a problem.

     Next, free speech is a critical thing if we want to learn from one another. As long as a group of protesters is being peaceful, please protest anything you would like. The idea of the left, however, is that if somebody wants to protest against any of the identifiable groups listed, is instantly going to be an aggressor, because somebody will be offended. If I have an opinion on something, and somebody is offended, that is not my problem at all. You do not have to listen. Aggression towards me, will not change my opinion. Though if you would like to have a proper discussion respectfully, we are both on even ground.

     Finally, I would like to cover “Microaggressions.” These are usually small comments such as “So, you’re Chinese, right?” or asking an Asian person if they can read a Japanese character on their phone. These things are just simple questions to most people. We assume that a person of Asian descent might be able to read some form of Asian literacy, but this is a profoundly offensive question to some people. Another violation of free speech. I have the right to ask any question I would like to ask. How am I supposed to know that this would offend you? Not every Asian person thinks the same. Typically, to be offended by a comment, they would have to intentionally insult you. When a person just asks a question because they are slightly ignorant to a topic, is no incentive to be offended and disregard their comment/insult them back. This is not productive at all.

     Overall where I believe that free speech doesn’t belong is when somebody says they are going to commit a crime to an individual. Though if I have a belief that a specific group of people is bad, and I want to prove to/warn people, I should be entitled to do this, not restricted. In my opinion, the government needs to stay out of our heads and out of Canadian rights.