The Oxen at the Intersection: Review

A Collision (or, Bill and Lou Must Die: A Real-Life Murder Mystery from the Green Mountains of Vermont), by pattrice jones (2014, Lantern Books)

This book is a page-turner. Jones is an excellent writer. She provides not only a history of the whole fiasco of the plan to kill rather than retire the oxen Bill and Lou, and the efforts to save them, but also a concise overview of the mythologies, intersections of power relationships and prejudice, and psychologies that came into play. It is both a valuable case study for social activists and a good introduction to the holistic anti-oppression perspective of eco-feminism.

Regarding the case itself, Jones seems to betray some personal rancor over what can well be seen as "hijacking" of the issue by others not directly involved (Jones' sanctuary had been approached by concerned alumni). Critiques of some of those are warranted, but they probably wouldn't have mattered if there was more direct "face-to-face" interaction, which Jones notes as perhaps the biggest shortcoming. However, she doesn't acknowledge the difficulty of direct action in this case: Poultney is rather far from everywhere as well as unfamiliar to almost all of the activists involved. And rights activists in Vermont simply do not go against the farming industry. Even the abuses revealed in late 2009 by HSUS at Bushway Packing, an "Animal Welfare Approved" slaughterhouse where organic dairy farms sent their male calves to be turned into veal, made barely a ripple. In another case in the late 2000's, a jogger in Greensboro noticed a pile of dead and dying animals on a farm, alerted authorities, and – nothing happened. As in these cases, the media, when they paid attention at all, only helped to support the "right-to-farm" viewpoint and discourage questioning of what farmers actually do to their animals.

One interesting and damning aspect of the Green Mountain College farm program is revealed in the book regarding their treatment of animals. Jones describes Princess, a cow who was given to them from someone who had bought her from an "agricultural college". It was clear that Princess had been abused (beyond the "normal" routines of animal ag), and Jones had written about her just before the Bill and Lou affair began, not knowing what college she had come from. When the campaign to save Bill and Lou began, people at the college recognized Princess and accused Jones of a concerted campaign against them. Jones also describes the visit of a couple of her colleagues during an open house at the college, where they saw a calf with so many burrs around his penis that he couldn't easily urinate. That calf was later sold, no questions asked, on Craig's List, with the stipulation that the buyer never reveal where they got it – which appears to have been a condition for saving Princess as well. As Jones points out, the head of the college farm program is a mathematician. It is an extension of his own hobby farm, with the added inexperience (and callousness) of college students. The animals seem to be neglected and abused and then disposed of, without acknowledgement, when they become too much trouble. As Jones also notes from the visit, the college garden was smaller than the one at their sanctuary. And as satellite pictures show, the college's acres of meadow are far from enough to sustain more than a very few animals (for meat, that is; used for produce, they could in fact feed quite a few humans). In other words, the farm is a sham, but worse, the animals are treated like toys for these very unserious dabblers.


Princess
Back to the problem of direct communication, as Jones makes clear, the bottom line was that the college was not at all open to discussion, even within their own walls. They were determined to prove a point, their authority, their "mastery". Closed off as they were, then, it was clearly the chaotic clamor of the social media–fired campaign to save Bill and Lou that at least saved Bill (whose actual fate, however, remains a mystery; for that matter, the actual fate of Lou also remains a mystery). And as Jones notes, it was the uncontrolled barrage of telephone calls to nearby slaughterhouses that stopped the original scheduled plan to turn both of them into hamburgers.

Jones also mentions her doubts about the effectiveness of gory photos and videos of animal abuse and suffering in the fight for animal rights. I agree. People are already desensitized and, as the "conscious carnivore" pushback shows, actually relish the fact that a life is sacrificed for their passing enjoyment. As the chef in Peter Greenaway's film "The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover" observes, people like to feel that they are eating death. Shocking pictures only serve to reinforce the very viewpoint we are attempting to change. As with the picture of the Green Mountain College student grinning maniacally in a hand-scrawled "Death to Chickens" T-shirt holding a dead rooster up by its legs, or the students screaming at protesters that even though they're "vegetarian" they were "excited" to eat Bill and Lou, the people who need to be persuaded away from harming animals are more likely to embrace the imagery, to fling it back defiantly. Disturbing pictures can be effective – if they are used effectively for specific messages and/or to specific audiences, not for indiscriminate shock value.

Anyhow, this book is a stimulating and inspiring read, an insightful analysis of the mostly failed effort to save these two lives. It is also very nicely typeset.


Last known photograph of Lou and Bill, Nov. 10, 2012.
Lou was reportedly killed before dawn of the next day.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism, Vermont, ecofeminism

Stop the noise!

From Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon, Jun. 25, 2008:

Modern cities can be so noisy that ornithologists have found birds warbling at the top of their lungs to be heard. Nightingales in Berlin have been documented singing up to 14 decibels louder than their counterparts in woody environs, in an attempt to make their songs audible above all the background noise. Yet the cacophony of modern life is hardly confined to metropolises like New York or Cairo, Egypt, where you literally have to shout on the street to make yourself heard.

In [the movie] "Noise," Bean's protagonist and his family escape to the country for the weekend. Their getaway is besieged by a neighbor's farting leaf blower. Getting away from it all just isn't that easy.

"For 50 years, if people didn't like noise, and they had money, the solution has been: Move to the suburbs. Now we've made our suburbs noisy. They're no longer quiet refuges," says Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, Vt. "We got our half-acre lots, and now we have our weed whacker, our leaf blower, our hedge trimmer, our riding lawn mower, and then we hop in our car and drive on four- and six-lane highways past thousands of other suburbs to our place of work, noise-polluting every place we pass."

But you don't have to be an anti-noise crusader to suffer physical effects from noise, even if you're sleeping right through it. Scientists at Imperial College London monitored the blood pressure of 140 sleeping volunteers who lived near London's Heathrow airport. They discovered that subjects' blood pressure rose when a plane few overhead even when the subjects remained asleep. A study of 5,000 45-to-70-year-olds living near airports for at least five years found that they were at greater risk of suffering from hypertension, aka high blood pressure, than their counterparts in quieter realms. People with high blood pressure have an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and dementia. In 2007, WHO estimated that long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for 3 percent of deaths from ischemic heart disease among Europeans.

Not only can too much loud noise damage your hearing, or disrupt your sleep, it can literally suck the life out of you thanks to the human body's fight-or-flight response. "The human auditory system is designed to serve as a means of warning against dangers in the environment," explains Louis Hagler, a retired internal medicine specialist in Oakland, Calif. "Noise above a certain level is perceived by the nervous system as a threat." The body responds to that threat with an outpouring of epinephrine and cortisol, the so-called stress hormones. "Your blood pressure goes up, your pulse rate goes up, there is a sudden outpouring of sugar into the bloodstream so the body is prepared to meet whatever threat there is in the environment."

If exposures are intermittent or rare, the body has the chance to return to normal. But if the exposure is unrelenting, the body doesn't have a chance to calm down, and blood pressure and heart rate may remain elevated, Hagler explains. That's why what seems like a mere annoyance can actually have long-term health effects. "There is no question that people who live near a busy roadway are experiencing effects on their blood pressure," says Hagler.

... "There is no evidence that noise causes mental illness itself, but there is little doubt that it may accelerate or intensify some kind of mental disorders," explains Hagler. He adds that symptoms of exposure to noise pollution include anxiety, nervousness, nausea, headaches, emotional instability, argumentativeness and changes in mood. No wonder excessive noise has been used as a form of torture.

... In the United States, back in the '70s, when [psychologist Arline] Bronzaft was documenting how children studying in classrooms next to elevated train tracks had delayed learning, there was an outpouring of official concern about the effects of noise, on both health and quality of life. In 1972, Congress passed the Noise Control Act. The Environmental Protection Agency had its own Office of Noise Abatement and Control, which still exists today, but as an unfunded skeleton. What happened? "A man got elected president named Ronald Reagan and everything stopped," says Bronzaft. The Gipper decided that noise was best regulated by cities and states, but federal funding to help them evaporated. Attempts to re-fund the office have failed. ...

[The results of a 3-year study of the physical effects of living near giant wind turbines is planned for publication late this summer. Click here for more information.]

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism<, human rights, animal rights, Vermont

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -- unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height.

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors. When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife).

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a minimum 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and Kamperman proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. German consultant Retexo-RISP also has suggested that "buildings, particularly housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the windfarm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum and colleagues surveyed residents near wind turbines in Maine and found significantly worse sleep and mental health among those living 1.4 km or closer than those living farther from the machines.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles). In June 2010, Ontario's environment ministry proposed requirements that offshore wind turbines be at least 5 km from the shoreline.

To protect human health, these distances are simply crude ways to minimize noise disturbance, especially at night, when atmospheric conditions often make wind turbine noise worse and carry it farther even as there is a greater expectation of (and need for) quiet. The World Health Organization says that the noise level inside a bedroom at night should be no greater than 30 dB(A) or 50 dB(C) (the latter measure includes more of the low-frequency spectrum of noise, which is felt as much as, or even more than, heard). A court case in Great Britain resulted in the “Den Brook” amplitude modulation conditions, which define and limit pulsating noise, which is especially intrusive, as any change, outside the dwelling, of >3 dB in the LAeq,125ms (125-millisecond averaged sound level) in any 2-second period at least 5 times in any minute with LAeq,1min (1-minute averaged sound level) ≥28 dB, and such excess occurring within at least 6 minutes in any hour.

Updates: 

Since 2008, Queensland, Australia, has limited night-time noise indoors to 30 dB(A) (1-hour average), with limits of 35 dB(A) no more than 10% of the time and 40 db(A) 1%. Respective daytime limits are 5 dB(A) above the night-time limits. They also specify that existing continuous 90% sound levels should not be increased and that variable noise averages should not increase existing sound levels more than 5 dB(A) in the same time period.

Scottish Planning Policy “recommends” a distance of 2 km between wind energy developments and the edge of cities, towns, and villages to reduce visual impact. Since August 2011, Victoria, Australia, has allowed wind turbines within 2 km of a home only with the homeowner's written consent. In April 2013, the Québec, Canada, government approved a 2-km setback from homes in the municipalities of Haut-Saint-Laurent, Montérégie. Citizens groups in Germany suggest a minimum distance of 10 times the total turbine height to residential areas (see this story). Since July 2013, the state of Saxony has required 1 km between wind turbines and residential areas.

In February 2014, Newport, North Carolina, established a 5,000-ft (1.5-km) setback from property lines, a 35-dB limit for noise at the property lines, and a total height limit of 275 feet. The latter two conditions were also established by Carteret County, North Carolina, in February 2014, as well as a 1-mile setback from property lines.

Also see:  “Wind turbine setback and noise regulations since 2010”

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights, animal rights

Wind Turbines: Health Risk or Annoyance?

The May issue of Canadian Family Physician includes a (peer-reviewed) commentary, "Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines", by Roy Jeffery, Carmen Krogh, and Brett Horner of the Society for Wind Vigilance, "an international federation of physicians, acousticians, engineers, and other professionals who share scientific research on the topic of health and wind turbines". On line, there are two replies, each of which illustrates a typical response in the effort to diminish the health problems caused by industrial-scale wind energy: changing the subject; and straw man or paper tiger argument.

First is from Gideon Forman, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment:

Virtually absent from this article is any discussion of the hazards posed by other forms of energy generation. ... No one argues wind mills are perfect but they stack up rather well when compared with other sources of electricity. Wind mills do not cause cancer; do not release toxic waste; do not produce smog; do not produce elements of acid rain; and do not contribute to climate change. Indeed, they help us to phase-out energy sources which do cause these adverse effects.

Second is from Roger Suss, physician, University of Manitoba:

Dr. Jeffrey and his colleagues conclude in their article that "industrial wind turbines can harm human health". Unfortunately the remainder of their commentary provides no evidence that this is so. Their argument can be summed up as follows: 1) The sound of wind turbines annoys some people. 2) Annoyance diminishes quality of life. 3) Diminished quality of life is a health issue. This argument is bulletproof. The trouble is that it is also banal. There is no question that sounds can be annoying. There's also no question that annoyance can contribute to anxiety, depression, poor concentration, dizziness, nausea, and sleep disturbance. I see patients daily who are feeling ill because of a variety of things that annoy them. Their relatives, neighbors, telemarketers, Microsoft, crows, and bad weather could all be considered harmful to their health. If we define health broadly enough, then its meaning disappears entirely and all human experience is "health". ... Noise pollution could indeed be considered a public health problem, but the evidence would depend on how many people were affected, and how much they were affected. It would require some attempt to look for a control or reference population. Dr Jeffery and colleagues make no attempt to provide us with any of that information. ...

Forman evidently thinks that pointing to a greater harm absolves a lesser harm, and that paying attention to the lesser harm somehow implies a denial of the greater harm. Back on the subject, he also claims that the lesser harm helps to eliminate the greater harm, despite no evidence whatsoever of wind energy even significantly reducing, let alone helping to eliminate, fossil and nuclear fuel use.

Suss latches on to the word "annoyance" and can't let go. The original article, however, lists annoyance as only one of the complaints about nearby wind turbines. Suss thus creates a paper tiger which he then mocks at length. Though Suss claims otherwise, the article reports that many people have measurable physical symptoms. Suss also completely ignores the seriousness of chronic sleep deprivation, the most reported effect of nearby wind turbines, which unlike the other "annoyances" he lists, never take a rest. In many places, turbines have to be shut down at night because they violate even modest noise regulations. And then he, too, changes the subject, demanding controlled studies and using their absence in these early days of study to excuse dismissing any evidence of harm.

It is disturbing that these two physicians lash out so irrationally to the simple information that as more wind turbines go up, doctors need to be aware of the well documented set of symptoms that many people experience when living near them. Telling their patients to accept their suffering, which is essentially what Forman and Suss are proposing here, is certainly not what most people would consider to be a desirable model of care.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights

Israel using Palestinian children as human shields

From the Guardian (U.K.):

Israelis soldiers were filmed using Sameh Amira, 24, as a human shield on February 25, during a week-long raid into the West Bank city of Nablus. Mr Amira was made to search homes in the city's casbah, or old city, during a search for wanted men and bomb-making laboratories. The casbah in the centre of the city was placed under curfew for two days and a Palestinian man was shot dead when he went onto the roof of his home.

Mr Amira's cousin, 15-year-old Amid Amira, told B'Tselem that soldiers also forced him to search three houses, making him enter rooms, empty cupboards and open windows.

An 11-year-old girl, Jihan Dadush, told B'Tselem that soldiers took her from her home three days later, on February 28, forcing her to open the door of a neighboring apartment and enter ahead of them. The soldiers then took her home, she said. 

In August 2002, a 19-year-old Palestinian student, Nidal Daraghmeh, was killed when troops in the West Bank town of Tubas forced him to knock on the door of a neighbouring building where a Hamas fugitive was hiding. Gunfire erupted and Daraghmeh was killed.

Yesh Din, another Israeli human rights group, has reported that the Israeli army used peaceful Palestinian villages to carry out training exercises. The group said that the villagers were harassed and scared as two battalions of reservists acted out a battle in their midst for three hours. The exercises were carried out without warning in the early morning in the villages of Beit Lid and Safarin last month.

Healthcare is a Human Right: VT postcard campaign

Healthcare is a Human Right

Click the above link to sign a postcard to be delivered to legislative leaders in Vermont on Jan. 6, the first day of the next session.

human rights, Vermont

White House misinformation and inaction regarding greenhouse gases

Thanking Obama for his "climate action", as Paul Burns of VPIRG has asked me to do, would be like thanking him for universal health care — not only are Obama's "actions" utterly phony, they are a meaningless sideshow to distract attention of the willfully gullible from the creation of such a paranoid militarized corporatist murderous state that Obama makes Dick Cheney look like Elmer Fudd and Dick Nixon like one of the Three Stooges.

On the White House web site, the President's climate action plan includes this graphic, with the EPA cited as reference:

What's glaringly missing is any indication that the non-CO₂ greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a much greater warming effect per unit of mass emitted. For example, the EPA, despite ignoring it on one page in the same way as the White House, notes on another page the different "global warming potential" (GWP) values of a few GHGs relative to CO₂. They note that over 100 years, methane (CH₄) has a GWP of 20 and nitrous oxide (N₂O) a GWP of 300. That would appear to mean that the 9% of GHG emissions represented by methane actually has more than twice (9 × 20), and the 5% represented by nitrous oxide more than 17 times, the effect of the 84% represented by CO₂.

Moreover, the EPA notes that CO₂ persists for thousands of years in the atmosphere, whereas CH₄ persists only about 10 years and N₂O over 100 years. [Update:  “Continued global warming after CO₂ emissions stoppage”, Thomas Lukas Frölicher, Michael Winton & Jorge Louis Sarmiento, Nature Climate Change, published online 24 November 2013, doi:10.1038/nclimate2060.]

In other words, even if we were successful in drastically reducing CO₂ emissions, there would be no effect for thousands of years. If we want to more quickly reduce the effects of GHG emissions, the obvious primary target is CH₄, with at least 20 times the warming effect of CO₂ and one that lasts only 10-12 years. According to other sources, CH₄ has a 100-year GWP of 25 and a 20-year GWP of 72.

The White House graphic describes methane as coming from the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from landfills. It neglects to mention that the hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") process of releasing natural gas, which Obama strongly supports, releases a particularly large amount of methane into the air. [Update: "Study: Methane Leakage From Gas Fields Guts Climate Benefit".] And it completely ignores the methane emissions from animal agriculture, which the United Nations has calculated contributes more to global warming than all transportation. [Update:  “Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States” [are probably at least twice as high as previously assumed], Scot M. Miller, Steven C. Wofsy, Anna M. Michalak, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Published online November 25, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1314392110.]

Simply changing our diet away from meat and dairy would have much more effect on climate change than all of Obama's "actions".

And there are many other benefits in reducing animal agriculture:

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9% of CO₂ deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65% of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the GWP of CO₂. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for 37% of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO₂), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64% of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30% of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33% of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70% of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing. [Between 25% and 30% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year -- 1.6 billion tonnes -- is caused by deforestation.]

At the same time, herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20% of pastures considered to be degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, eutrophication, and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above- and below-ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20% of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline with livestock identified as a culprit.

Another obvious target is to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have come into use as refrigerants and propellants to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, such as freon). CFCs were phased out because of their destruction of the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere. They are also potent GHGs, as are HFCs. For example, HFC-134a (CF₃CFH₂) has a 100-year GWP of 1,430 and 20-year GWP of 3,830 and persists in the atmosphere only 14 years, making it, with methane, another obvious candidate for meaningful action. In fact, in 2011 the E.U. banned HFC-134a in new cars in favor of HFC-1234yf (100-year GWP of 4), with a total ban on all uses being phased in through 2017. Meanwhile the U.S. has only talked and delayed about doing the same.

Update (note):  Like his continuing delay (renewed in this latest "action") to finally approve the Keystone XL pipeline to appease Bill McKibben and his 350.org "activists", while it continues to be built nonetheless, Obama's "climate action" seems to be little more than another cynical bone thrown to them, who are just as phony, just as adept at misinformation and inaction, because 350.org also ignores all but CO₂ in the atmosphere, ensuring no reversal of anthropogenic warming – let alone environmental depredation – at all.

environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism

Only nonrestrictive restrictions OK in Wisconsin?

Note (July 22):  After a read of the ruling itself (available here), it is clear that the AP report was taken from an industry spin release. The ruling, it is a relief to learn, preserves the local right to preserve or protect the public health or safety. It is only in restricting wind energy systems for other reasons that it can't decrease the system's efficiency:

We also read the statutes to disfavor wholesale local control which circumvents this policy. Instead, localities may restrict a wind energy system only where necessary to preserve or protect the public health or safety, or where the restriction does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency, or where the locality allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency.

As reported by the AP, July 16:

Local governments [in Wisconsin] cannot pass broad rules dictating how far wind turbines must be from other buildings, how tall they can be or how much noise they can produce, the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals ruled.

Instead, municipalities must consider each project on a case-by-case basis and only restrict them to protect public health or in a way that does not affect a system’s cost or efficiency, the court said.

The decision struck down a Calumet County ordinance that set height, noise and setback requirements for turbines, but lawyers said its impact would be felt statewide.

What are rules about height, setbacks, and noise, if not to protect public health?!

And what is the restriction to limit rules to those that do not affect a system's cost or efficiency, but a bald-faced mockery of government and the rights of citizens?

This court is saying that state law allowing local goverments to make rules to protect public health and safety does not allow them to actually make such rules, that local governments must restrict any project separately, but not at all if it actually restricts the project.

Words fail in expressing one's outraged reaction to such craven venality.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights, human rights

Clinton the Great and Enlightened Despots

Dallas Darling writes:

When security forces assaulted and beat 71-year-old Ray McGovern while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just stood by and watched, it evoked a faraway age of enlightened despots. As Clinton began her speech at George Washington University and condemned human rights violations, government arrests of protesters, and internet censorship, McGovern remained standing peacefully and silently turning his back. He was then attacked by security officers and brutally hauled out of the meeting. McGovern received bruises, lacerations, and contusions during the assault. Meanwhile, Clinton continued to observe and watch and did absolutely nothing. McGovern, a veteran, was later jailed.

Enlightened despots were kings and queens who were rich and well educated and recommended religious toleration while talking about abolishing torture and capital punishment. Some of them supported the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness up to a certain point, or when their own power base was threatened. More often than not, the changes they made were motivated by making their kingdoms stronger and their own rule more effective and forceful. Catherine the Great was one such enlightened despot who instituted some reforms and modernized Russia while still remaining an absolute ruler. Even though she believed education was better than punishment, she once scribbled to an aristocrat: "Be so good as to call your peasants cattle."

Catherine also exchanged letters with Voltaire, Diderot and John Locke. She wrote that liberty was the dearest thing to her soul and more important than even life itself. Catherine spoke against serfdom and praised enlightened thinkers for fighting the united enemies of humankind: "superstition, fanaticism, ignorance, and trickery." But when thousands of serfs and mine and factory workers revolted along the Volga River in 1773 for equality, liberty, land, fair taxation, and their own courts, she sent troops and crushed the rebellion. Tens of thousands of serfs and workers perished. The ring leaders of the rebellion were executed. Other ethnic peasants, who fought for toleration and freedom from persecution, were slaughtered too.

Catherine responded with severe repression to over fifty peasant revolts. After the Great Plague of Moscow killed 100,000 persons, cannon were used to suppress rioting. Priests were silenced and jailed for challenging her policies. She gradually started to see the aristocracy as her allies in maintaining state control. In 1785, Catherine granted Russian nobility a privileged status. They were exempt from personal taxation and afforded numerous rights. In return, they supported Catherine's rule. Russian serfs lost their last trace of freedom. Behind "Potemkin's Villages," a sarcastic phrase used in referring to overblown and unreal achievements, Catherine arrested writers, banished dissidents, and censored the press. Her contribution to Russia was not reform but an expanded empire.

In a tightly scripted speech, Clinton told about the promises and perils of the internet. She accused WikiLeaks of "stealing" government documents and posting them, and that such actions raised serious questions about balancing freedom with security concerns. Clinton declared that without security, liberty was fragile and without liberty security was oppressive. For Clinton, it seems security is beating and silencing a 71-year old peaceful protester. For Clinton, it appears security is a government that wiretaps, steals records, and infiltrates peace groups, even arresting members on frivolous charges. Not only is self-expression banished and the press censored, specifically by aristocratic corporations and their propagandistic armament industries that can afford it, but despotic wars are forced on the masses.

Despotic presidents too, who once promised a transparent and open government and railed against fear mongering tactics, gradually ally themselves with the military industrial complex and aristocracy. The excuse is always the same: national security is at risk and a free press and access to information is a clear and present danger. Other despotic rulers in Congress try to control public space and the acquisition of knowledge and therefore, they submit new bills that will make publishing classified information punishable, even unto death. In the end, public discourse is either repressed or sacrificed, as are debates over misguided military interventions and lengthy military occupations. Meanwhile, thousands of military serfs continue serve the empire and die.

Behind President Barack Obama's empty words and "Clinton's Villages," expanding the empire and feeding a corporate aristocracy are more important than reform and liberty. Welcome to another age of enlightened despots!

"What about animal rights?"

As reported in January for the AP by Nedra Pickler, that question was posed to Barack Obama at a meeting in Henderson, Nevada.

He closed his reply with:

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."

human rights, animal rights

Mounties for Freedom: Open Letter to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki

October 21, 2021

Dear Commissioner Brenda Lucki:

We respectfully submit this open letter to express our most sincere concerns and resolute stand against the forced coercive medical intervention of Canadians, and against the undue discrimination experienced by those exercising their lawful right to bodily autonomy. We are not against vaccinations, but as law enforcement officers, we cannot in good conscience willingly participate in enforcing mandates that we believe go against the best interests of the people we protect.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As Canadians, our constitutionally-protected freedoms precede the government, and may only be temporarily limited if the majority of evidence justifies such infringements as reasonable, provable, and guided by law. If presented with all available evidence in a court, we firmly believe the government implemented mandates would not hold up under scrutiny.

As experienced investigators, we look past what information is provided and focus on how the information is presented. A proper investigation should be conducted as objectively as possible, and follow the principle that it is better to have questions that cannot be answered than to have answers that cannot be questioned. A complete investigation must include full disclosure of all the facts of the case, even contradictory evidence. Why, then, is there little to no tolerance for free and open debate on this matter? Many credible medical and scientific experts are being censored. Accordingly, we rightly have concerns about “the science” we are being coerced to “follow”.

As representatives of our communities within the RCMP and representatives of the RCMP in our communities, we have never witnessed such division in our country. This sense of “Us versus Them” will be further fueled by having a police force consisting only of “vaccinated” people, while serving communities consisting of “unvaccinated” people, which goes against the community policing model the RCMP has strived to achieve.

As law enforcement officers, we already face higher levels of stress and mental illnesses due to the nature of our work. These have been compounded – considerably – by mandates that we believe are deeply unethical, threatening our livelihood, and dividing society.

As federal employees, what is being done to mitigate this stress? Moreover, what assurances are we given that the injections will not cause short or long-term side effects? What steps will be taken to ensure members are compensated for adverse side effects?

Police officers are expected to preserve the peace, uphold the law, and defend the public interest. We strongly believe that forced and coerced medical treatments undermine all three and, thus, contradict our duties and responsibilities to Canadians. We remain loyal to the Charter and Bill of Rights and ask you to send investigators to collect statements from medical professionals (and other reliable witnesses) who allege they have been silenced – putting lives at risk. Allow us to make this information publicly available to all so the public can scrutinize it and achieve informed consent.

ABOUT US

This letter was created from the collective thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of actively serving police officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) from across the country. We have a wealth of experience which includes, but is not limited to, General Duty, Federal Serious and Organized Crime, School Liaison, Prime Minister Protection Detail, Emergency Response Team, Media Relations, and Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. We come from various ranks, levels of experience, communities, cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, and vaccination statuses. Together we are the Mounties for Freedom. We are individual police officers who united in the belief that citizens, including federal employees, should not be forced and coerced into taking a medical intervention.

OUR STANCE

In August 2021, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced, “Federal public servants need to be fully vaccinated,” and that for those without a medical exemption who choose not to be vaccinated: “There will be consequences” [1].

Since that statement, many federal employees have been told they will be sent home without pay for refusing to receive a contested medical treatment. We have united in the belief that people should not be forced or coerced into receiving the current COVID-19 treatments – it should be voluntary. We stand united against the forced and coerced medical intervention of Canadians and against the discrimination faced by those who have exercised their right to bodily autonomy. We believe in democracy, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Bill of Rights.

This is not about whether people should be vaccinated – that is a personal choice.

THE LAW

Our primary duty as peace officers in the RCMP is the preservation of peace [2]. We have never witnessed the level of division in our country as we currently see from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is our responsibility, now more than ever, to make all efforts at preserving the peace in our country.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) protects fundamental rights and freedoms essential to keeping Canada a free and democratic society [3]. The Canadian Bill of Rights adds, “… the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge … the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions” [4]. It continues to say, “Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law” [5].

We believe our federal and provincial governments have failed to uphold the Charter, Bill of Rights, and Constitution and we are witnessing the erosion of democracy in Canada. As you know, the Charter does not guarantee absolute freedoms. If the government is going to limit freedoms, it must establish the limitations are reasonable given all available facts. The government must adhere to a process to prove their actions are appropriate, called the Oakes test. We firmly believe, if presented with all available evidence in a court, the government implemented mandates would not pass the Oakes test. At the time of writing this letter, the Charter’s section 33 Notwithstanding Clause has not been invoked for this pandemic.

Requiring mandatory COVID-19 treatment options is a slippery slope and allows the government to overstep its authority unchecked. It infringes on the fundamental belief in our society that the individual has the right and freedom to choose. The choice of whether to receive medical treatments has always been an individual’s right in Canada. The Canadian National Report on Immunization (1996) stated “Immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution” [6.] Section 2 of The Charter guarantees these fundamental freedoms through the freedom of conscience (subsection a) and the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (subsection b) [7]. Without individuals having the freedom to choose, we would not have a democratic society.

Though the Nuremberg Code is not a law, it is internationally accepted and falls in line with the spirit of our Charter and Bill of Rights. A key component of the Nuremberg Code is that participants in a medical experiment need to participate voluntarily without any form of force or coercion [8]. We have obtained documentation from several Canadian doctors who have explained the current COVID-19 treatment options in Canada, being referred to as “vaccines”, were recently authorized as new drugs despite the absence of long-term data [9]. According to these accredited Canadian doctors, these treatment options did not meet the criteria of true vaccines until very recently when the definition of vaccine was changed [10,11]. Without long-term data, these vaccines are still experimental. We believe the act of removing the rights and freedoms of citizens who refuse to participate in specific COVID-19 treatment options is a form of coercion.

The Criminal Code contains our country’s Criminal Offences and explains that a person commits an assault by intentionally applying force to someone else without that person’s consent [12]. The Criminal Code further explains that consent is not obtained from a person who submits, or neglects to resist, on the grounds of authority being exercised over them [13]. How then can someone give proper consent to a COVID-19 treatment injection when doing so under the threat of losing their job, freedoms, or livelihood? Canadian courts have already ruled that medical treatment without proper informed consent is an assault [14].

As law enforcement officers, we cannot in good conscience willingly participate in enforcing mandates that violate the laws of our country and breach the rights and freedoms of the people we protect.

LEST WE FORGET

Each year, on the 11th of November, we remember those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. From Flanders Field to Juno Beach, many Canadians have bled and died fighting tyrannical nations. We need to remember past events to prevent the repetition of history’s greatest mistakes.

On the 30th of September, we had the opportunity to reflect on such times during our first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Under the direction of the Government of Canada, RCMP members were once issued lawful orders to remove children from their homes and transport them to residential schools. Canada is still recovering from the impact of those decisions and actions. The RCMP has yet to regain the trust of some citizens.

There was a time when scientists believed humans were divided into racial hierarchies and that a person’s intelligence level and characteristics were determined by race [15]. These beliefs were not heavily contested and were widely accepted as scientific fact [16]. Phrenology was also widely accepted as being a legitimate scientific study [17]. These are not examples of science being wrong but of people conducting poor investigations or misunderstanding their findings. These are just two of several historical examples of widely accepted scientific truths, which became ridiculed practices.

We look back at those times of racial hierarchy and wonder how something so wrong could have been so widely accepted as truth. It is just as hard for many people to conceptualize how RCMP officers could have blindly followed lawful orders that devastated so many lives. Yet now we find ourselves in dangerous waters, when RCMP officers are being forced under coercion and duress to participate in actions they believe go against the spirit of Canadian laws.

We find it ironic that an organization that preaches the honour and respect of Canadian values, and the sacrifice of their veterans, would support actions that contradict the values our veterans fought to uphold. Enforcement of identification and checkpoints was an early step in what would become the Holocaust. Canadian citizens of various backgrounds are being segregated and punished for choosing not to disclose a personal medical decision. We cannot think of a more ironic and cruel way for our governments to pay homage to the sacrifices Canadians have made worldwide to protect individual freedoms than by participating in a process that takes those freedoms away.

Today, instead of having one version of scientific “truth” during this pandemic, we have versions that contradict one another. How can some professionals be so certain their interpretation of science is correct when others give evidence to the contrary? History has already demonstrated we get things wrong even when our scientists agree.

We acknowledge there is a spectrum filled with beliefs relating to this pandemic. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to two main schools of thought: the common narrative (those who believe the current COVID-19 treatment injections are the way through the pandemic) and those who have concerns with the COVID-19 treatment injections. It’s important to note we are not discussing “antivaxxers” in this letter. We are discussing people with various vaccination statuses who pose questions about the current COVID-19 treatment options being forced upon them.

THE SCIENCE

RCMP members are not scientists nor healthcare professionals; our profession is law enforcement. We do not pretend to be experts in medical or scientific fields, but we are experienced and professional investigators: we look for the facts. Proper investigations follow simple practices that remain consistent across most fields. These practices include but are not limited to: asking the right questions, following evidence, being aware of how biases may affect results, and allowing the evidence to point to the conclusion – not allowing the conclusion to point to the evidence. Most importantly, a proper investigation should be conducted as objectively as possible and follow the principle that it is better to have questions that cannot be answered than to have answers that cannot be questioned. A complete investigation must include full disclosure of all the facts of the case, even contradictory evidence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused several scientists and medical professionals to provide us with information they described as “science”, “scientific”, or “facts”. The problem with many of these statements is that the provided information often contradicted another piece of “scientific fact” that an equally qualified professional had produced. This makes it near impossible for the average person to know what to believe and what not to believe.

As experienced investigators, we look past what information is provided and focus on how the information is presented. This allows us some insight into the credibility of the information. Some professionals make definitive statements such as “It’s safe and effective” or “This is the way”, giving little or no explanation of how they reached their conclusion. When the information provided is challenged or questioned, the response often indicates the answer is something that cannot be questioned. The CDC recently changed its definition of immunity and vaccine [10,11], allowing the current COVID-19 treatment injections to fit the definition. This is an example of actions taken when you allow your conclusion to point to your evidence.

Other qualified professionals have provided alternate pieces of information during this pandemic. It is not what their results were, but how they arrived at their results that we believe in. These professionals have all been able to articulate their findings quite well and are quick to admit the remaining questions they cannot answer. These professionals (from Canada [18] and abroad [19]) have expressed warnings and concerns with the current COVID-19 treatment options condoned by the governments. Some of these concerns suggest a higher-than-average number of moderate to severe side-effects from the COVID-19 “vaccinations” compared with our traditional vaccinations [19]. Others have stated the current COVID-19 treatment options are proving to be less effective than initially believed [20,21].

We have attached several documents as appendices to this letter which contain information we believe raises reasonable concerns with the current COVID-19 vaccination mandates seen across our country. We encourage you to review the documents and the work each document references thoroughly. Though we understand we have provided a lot of material – which will take time and resources to read – we believe the fact that there is so much evidence opposing the mandatory roll-out of the current COVID-19 treatments is reason enough to take our concerns seriously.

There have also been scientific papers that suggest natural immunity is a better form of protection than what the COVID-19 vaccination can give [21-24]. Why is antibody testing not being discussed as a potential option for RCMP members?

Here is a list of the documents we’ve attached to this letter. These documents are a sample of what is available and were written by people (or groups) of scientific or medical professionals in fields directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We defer to their expertise.

• Appendix A – This is an open letter from Dr. Eric Payne, a pediatric neurologist in Alberta, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. In his letter, Dr. Payne highlights several inconsistencies he has found with the common narrative. Dr. Payne provides several sources from around the world throughout his letter.
• Appendix B – This is the Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration. This heavily sourced document provides information on the current pandemic and makes recommendations based on their findings.
• Appendix C – This is a letter from Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist in Ontario, to the President of the University of Guelph. Dr. Bridle uses his extensive experience and qualifications to explain his concerns with the common narrative surrounding the COVID-19 treatment injections. Dr. Bridle also articulates his concerns with the COVID-19 health mandates.
• Appendix D – This is an open letter from Health Professionals United to the Alberta Health Services. The letter outlines reasons why several frontline healthcare workers in Alberta heavily oppose mandatory COVID-19 vaccination mandates.
• Appendix E – This is an open letter from frontline healthcare workers in British Columbia to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and Premier John Horgan. The author(s) state their experiences and expertise are being ignored and ask that the vaccination mandates be revoked.
• Appendix F – This is a report from Dr. Tess Lawrie from the United Kingdom. Dr. Lawrie demonstrates the abnormal number of reported adverse effects from the current COVID-19 treatment injections.
• Appendix G – This is a comprehensive report comparing natural immunity to COVID-19 vs Vaccine-Induced Immunity. It was comprised from several scientists from Ontario and British Columbia.

CENSORSHIP

We are not against vaccinations, and we are trying to aid our country through this pandemic. We want to participate in a way that is safe for both our physical and mental well-being. We believe it is essential for people to participate with full informed consent by understanding all the risks of what they are being asked (or in this case forced) to participate in.

As experienced police officers, we have become accustomed to the media portraying us negatively or experienced the media misrepresenting the outcome of a police incident. It would be little to no surprise for us to hear that a media agency misreported an incident. However, it was surprising for us to learn that several of these scientists and doctors, who questioned the information fueling the COVID-19 treatment mandates, also spoke of censorship [25-27].

As experienced investigators, we know it is our responsibility to present all available facts to the public – by proxy of the courts. It is not our place to decide what the outcome of an investigation should be. Our job is to collect all available facts so that the public (the courts) can make an informed decision. We have learned from past mistakes that presenting evidence that only supports one side, while ignoring or refusing to acknowledge evidence from another side, is wrong and tarnishes an investigation. We cannot provide evidence from witnesses who agree on one story while ignoring or hiding the witnesses who agree on a different account of an incident.

It would be unthinkable that RCMP members would blatantly disregard witnesses in an investigation to mislead the courts. The investigation would lose all integrity and the members would be criticized. Why then are we allowing this same behaviour to occur by other public figures? There are accredited medical professionals from our own country who are desperately trying to have their findings heard. Instead of allowing these professionals to speak freely and discuss their results publicly, they are being silenced by governing bodies [25-27].

Our experience in law enforcement and as investigators have allowed us to see how crucial it is that these professionals be allowed to speak openly and publicly. Without the information being included in discussions, we believe the citizens of Canada (including RCMP members) are not receiving the information they need to make an informed decision. This is contrary to our laws and beliefs, and we do not support it.

These medical professionals have tried to stand up and support their country. We are now standing up and supporting them. They must be allowed to share their information publicly to maintain people’s faith in the government. If the people believe the government is continuing to censor experts, the country will fall into instability. This is common around the world in countries whose tyrannical governments sensor information from their people.

DISCRIMINATION

We strongly oppose the discrimination that has already begun to create segregation in our country. It has divided families, ended friendships, torn apart spouses, and entered the RCMP workplace. We believe the current messaging being put out by our provincial and federal governments is promoting the creation of an in-group referred to as “Vaccinated” and an out-group as “Unvaccinated”. Even worse, the out-group has been labelled “Anti-vaxxers,” a term used out of context in a negative and derogatory way. The messaging from our governments is causing the dehumanization of the “Unvaccinated” group. By dehumanizing the out-group, an institution creates a greater divide between them and the in-group [28].

Police agencies across Canada pride themselves in their efforts to hire officers reflective of the communities they serve. This allows community members to relate to their officers and see them as part of the community. We are representatives of our communities within the RCMP and representatives of the RCMP in our communities. Having a police force consisting only of “vaccinated” people while serving communities consisting of “unvaccinated” people will tear down some of the similarities RCMP members share with their communities. This will create a greater sense of “Us versus Them” between communities and police, which contradicts the community policing model the RCMP has strived to achieve for decades. We anticipate that unless this is corrected soon, it will continue to increase the divide in our country.

Dehumanizing individuals is challenging. It is easier to attach a label and stigma to a group. That way, anyone or anything that comes from the group can be written off [28]. The term “Anti-vaxxer” is currently being used to mislabel and group people into a category to take away their credibility. This has allowed things to be written and said against this group that would be intolerable if written or said about any other group.

On August 26th, 2021, the Toronto Star ran an article that read in large bold letters, “I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die. I honestly don’t care if they die from COVID. Not even a little bit. Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds. At this point, who cares. Stick the unvaccinated in a tent outside and tend to them when the staff has time [29,30].” If “willfully unvaccinated” was replaced with “Black”, “Gay”, or “willfully Muslim”, this would have been labelled a Hate Crime. How then can we allow such things to be said about people who choose not to receive a medical intervention? Should we allow the same messaging for those who choose not to get a flu shot one season?

The boldness of this statement being printed in a major newspaper shows how acceptable it is in our society to treat people as a lower class of citizens. As RCMP members, we must preserve peace in our communities and put a stop to this.

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

This pandemic has increasingly made people feel isolated from their friends, families, and peers. RCMP members already face higher levels of stress and mental illnesses due to the nature of our work. Members affected by the double-vaccination mandate have faced greater stress and isolation as they have watched their status as citizens and regular members begin to diminish. There is currently insufficient support for these members, and there does not seem to be a plan insight to provide adequate support.

The recent vaccination update has left some people feeling more isolated than ever. In times like this, people need support from a community, and our membership is no different. We fear there are more members afraid to speak up about these recent updates for fear of being targeted. Many members may be trying to stick this out on their own, or worse, suffering in silence. We ask that you attempt to reach out in partnership with the NPF to all members who may be negatively affected by these mandates and let them know their employer and governments support them.

Though most people seem to have little to no side effects from the COVID-19 treatment injections, an abnormal number of moderate to severe adverse reactions have included death [31]. What assurances are we given that the injections will not cause short or long-term side effects? Studies show that stress and sleep can play a huge factor in whether a vaccine is effective or not [32,33]. Are you ensuring RCMP members are provided with the appropriate amount of rest before an injection? What steps will the RCMP take to ensure members are compensated for adverse side effects?

We also believe enough evidence has been presented to question whether our governments’ actions in this pandemic are the most appropriate. This is causing moral and ethical stressors for some members as they no longer believe their role as police officers is reflective of the democracy Canada claims to be. Mental health and stress levels will have an impact on how members interact with the public.

PARALLELING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The RCMP has taught us the importance and severity of domestic violence. Domestic violence is centred around power and control between an abuser and a victim. One of the biggest problems with domestic violence is there is often an escalation in the severity of abuse. RCMP members have been taught how to identify the signs that someone is involved in an abusive relationship. There are different types of abuse the abuser may engage in to keep control over their victim: Physical, Financial, and Emotional.

Emotional abuse is quite complex and will often include a variety of tactics such as socially distancing the victim from friends and family, discrediting the victim so they have difficulty obtaining support from others, and making the victim believe that their thoughts and beliefs are wrong – to the point the victim thinks they must be insane. When it comes to finances, an abuser will withhold money and assets from the victim. This ensures the victim cannot survive without remaining in the abusive relationship with the abuser. When an abuser feels they are losing control over their victim, it is quite common for them to escalate their tactics to maintain control.

The federal government is currently displaying several of those traits with its own employees, including the RCMP [34].

Commissioner Lucki, we understand your position is appointed, and we are concerned that you too may be subject to a similar relationship with the Prime Minister. Though you, as our top Mountie, should be impartial, you may be forced into supporting some of these actions out of duress. We ask that you do what we ask our domestic violence victims to do – to take a stand against the abuser. This country needs strong and supportive people in positions of authority. Please show Canadians that the RCMP will remain impartial to political agendas and true to the Charter and our Bill of Rights.

PUBLIC INTEREST

Lastly, we want to draw attention to the public safety issues that will arise if these COVID-19 mandates are upheld.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” [35]. How is it our federal government is now saying it will be mandatory for employees working from home to receive the COVID-19 treatment injections? [36]

Regardless of their vaccination statuses, there are RCMP members who feel the steps taken by the federal and provincial governments are too extreme and do not have the best interest of Canadian citizens. Forcing these mandates will cause several RCMP officers to lose faith in the federal government’s commitment to the Charter. These RCMP officers will not participate in actions they believe contradict their morals, ethics, and Canadian laws. These RCMP officers believe it is their responsibility to challenge the federal government in court if necessary.

The RCMP, which is already understaffed, will have additional gaps to fill across the country when these members are not working. Communities will have lost healthy and experienced officers, causing a decrease in available resources. There will also be an increase in taxpayers’ spending as the federal government attempts to fill these gaps. Being short-staffed will have a trickle-down effect causing fewer RCMP bodies to be available to properly recruit, assess, and conduct adequate background checks on potential cadets.

Our experience in law enforcement and as investigators have allowed us to see how crucial it is that professionals be allowed to speak openly and publicly. Without including their information in discussions, we believe the citizens of Canada (including RCMP members) are not receiving the information they need to make an informed decision. This is contrary to our laws and beliefs, and we do not support it.

We want to reiterate a point stated earlier in this letter, so it is remembered. If the people believe the government is continuing to censor experts, the country will fall into instability. We are experts in law enforcement and investigations. We are losing faith in the motives of our government, and we will not willingly participate in actions against people whose Charter rights and freedoms are being violated.

CALL TO ACTION

Commissioner Lucki, we ask that you represent the best image of the RCMP by remaining loyal to the Charter and Bill of Rights and not to any particular public figure. Our job as Mounties is to preserve the peace. If we continue down this road of segregation and discrimination, we risk repeating past mistakes. The divide in our society is quickly leaning toward a level of national security. We ask that you open an investigation to ensure no criminal acts were committed in the dissemination of information from federal and provincial health authorities or public figures in positions of trust. We ask you to send investigators to collect statements from medical professionals (and other reliable witnesses) who allege they had been silenced – putting lives at risk. Allow us to make this information publicly available to all so the public can scrutinize it and achieve informed consent. As Canada’s national police force, we are unique in our ability to conduct a large-scale cross-country investigation, which must be transparent to regain trust in the government.

We also ask that you challenge the Federal Government’s decision to send Mounties home without pay for decisions they’ve made on beliefs protected by Canadian laws. Neither the RCMP, nor the communities they serve, can endure the loss of experienced police officers.

We await your response and your plan of action.

Respectfully,

Mounties for Freedom

cc: The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, President of the Treasury Board of Canada Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation

END NOTES

1. Connolly, Amanda, “Notice Offering Options for Federal Workers Who Refuse Vaccines Was ‘Erroneous’: Trudeau,” Global News (2021). Accessed September 30, 2021, https://globalnews.ca/news/8118913/canada-mandatory-vaccines-federal-workers/.
2. Government of Canada, “Duties,” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10). Accessed October 19, 2021, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-10/page-3.html.
3. ———. “Learn about the Charter,” Accessed October 19, 2021. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/learn-apprend.html.
4. ———. “Bill of Rights,” Canadian Bill of Rights (S.C. 1960, c. 44). Accessed October 19, 2021. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html.
5. Ibid.
6. Public Health Agency of Canada, “Canadian National Report on Immunization – 1996,” Accessed October 19, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20080414131846/http:/www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/97vol23/23s4/23s4b_e.html http:/www.phacaspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/97vol23/23s4/23s4b_e.html
7. Government of Canada, “Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Section 2,” Accessed October 19, 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rightsprotected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2b.
8. National Institutes of Health, “The Nuremberg Code,” Accessed September 30, 2021, https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg+Code.
9. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, “Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration,” (September 24, 2021), p. 18, par. 3. Appendix B.
10. Payne, Eric, “RE: Mandatory mRNA Vaccine Mandate for Alberta Physicians,” (September 14, 2021), p. 1, par 1. Appendix A.
11. Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, “Immunization: The Basics,” Accessed October 19, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm.
12. Government of Canada, “Assault,” Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), S. 265 (1)(a). Accessed October 20, 2021, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html.
13. ———. “Assault,” Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), S. 265 (3)(d). Accessed October 20, 2021, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html.
14. Supreme Court of Canada, “Hopp v. Lepp,” 1980 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 192. Accessed October 20, 2021, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1980/1980canlii14/1980canlii14.html.
15. Bryson, Bill, The Body, narrated by Bill Bryson (New York, NY: Random House Audio, 2019), Audible audio ed., 14 hrs., 4 min.
16. Ibid.
17. Encyclopedia.com, “Phrenology in Nineteenth-Century Britain and America,” Accessed October 19, 2021, https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/phrenology-nineteenth-century-britain-and-america.
18. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, “Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration,” (September 24, 2021), p. 2, par, 1. Appendix B.
19. Dolan, Mark, and Lawrie, Tess, “16 July 2021,” YouTube, July 16, 2021, Interview, 14:56 min. Accessed on October 19, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsXVe9IXco&t=2s.
20. Lawrie, Tess, “RE: Urgent preliminary report of Yellow Card data up to 26th May 2021,” (June 9, 2021), p. 6, par. 4. Appendix F.
21. Bridle, Byram, “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,” (June 15, 2021), p. 2, par. 2. Accessed October 20, 2020, https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-15-children_and_covid-19_vaccines_full_guide.pdf.
22. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, “Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration,” (September 24, 2021), p. 2-3. Appendix B.
23. Bridle, Byram, “An Open Letter to the President of the University of Guelph,” (September 17, 2021), p. 2. Appendix C.
24. Mallard, Bonnie, et al., “Which is better for future COVID-19 prevention: Immunity Following Natural Infection or Vaccine-Induced Immunity?” (October 8, 2021), p. 2, par. 3. Appendix G.
25. Payne, Eric, “RE: Mandatory mRNA Vaccine Mandate for Alberta Physicians,” (September 14, 2021), p. 1-14. Appendix A.
26. Dzsurdzsa, Cosmin, “Derek Sloan Hosts Press Conference with Censored Doctors,” True North News. Accessed October 20, https://tnc.news/2021/06/17/derek-sloan-hosts-press-conference-with-censored-doctors/.
27. Sloan, Derek, “Censorship in Canada,” Vimeo, June 17, 2021, CPAC Parliamentary Press Conference, 3:15. Accessed on October 20, 2021, https://standupcanada.solutions/censorship-in-canada.
28. Wilkerson, Isabel, Caste, narrated by Robin Miles (New York, NY: Random House Audio, 2020), Audible audio ed., 14 hrs., 26 min.
29. Slapinski, Mark, “‘Hate Speech’: The Toronto Star Slammed for Headline Wishing Death on the Unvaccinated,” Toronto 99. Accessed October 20, 2021, https://www.toronto99.com/2021/08/26/hate-speech-the-toronto-star-slammed-for-headline-wishing-death-on-the-unvaccinated/.
30. Bridle, Byram, “An Open Letter to the President of the University of Guelph,” (September 17, 2021), p. 5. Appendix C.
31. Dolan, Mark, and Lawrie, Tess, “16 July 2021,” YouTube, July 16, 2021, Interview, 14:56 min. Accessed on October 20, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsXVe9IXco&t=2s.
32. Walker, Matthew, Why We Sleep, narrated by Steve West (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Audio, 2017), Audible audio ed., 13 hrs., 52 min.
33. Ibid.
34. Sauvé, Brian, “Members who do not complete an attestation to being fully vaccinated can expect to be put on administrative Leave Without Pay,” National Police Federation (October 7, 2021). Email broadcast to NPF members.
35. CBC Archives, “Trudeau: There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” CBC News (1967). Accessed October 20, 2021, https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/omnibus-bill-theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation.
36. Johnson, Gail, “Declare Your Covid-19 Vaccination Status,” RCMP NOC News. Email broadcast to RCMP members.

How the Left Hijacked Civil Rights

Robert Woodson and Joshua Mitchell write in the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 16, 2021:

The civil-rights movement, led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., helped deliver America from the historic sins of slavery and Jim Crow by forcing the nation to confront the full humanity of its black citizens. King’s words and actions glorified America by transfiguring its racial wound and revealing its redemptive promise. Yet today many black leaders have lost sight of King altogether and are aiding and abetting the crucifixion of their own people. Rather than hope, they see despair; rather than the Easter Sunday of true liberation, they offer the bleak Good Friday of never-ending misery.

The history of black American responses to slavery and Jim Crow generally followed three paths. They were hotly debated, but all emphasized human agency, sought liberation, and rejected despair.

First, there were the recolonization or “back to Africa” movements championed by the likes of Marcus Garvey. These movements sought an exit from America.

Second, there were the insurrectionists of the 19th century, who believed that black Americans should engage in armed rebellion or vocal opposition so that they might find a home in this country. Here lie Nat Turner and, later, W.E.B. Du Bois. They wanted to have their resistant voice heard in America.

Third, there were accommodationist movements of the sort undertaken by Booker T. Washington, who thought that loyalty to America was the best course.

Exit, voice, loyalty—however different these strategies were, each supposed that human agency mattered, that oppression wasn’t destiny. That is why, even amid great struggle, black Americans responded by building their own institutions and businesses. Great universities, medical schools, hotels, restaurants, movie companies and even a flight school sprung up. All of this was self-financed—and made possible by two-parent families, churches and other cultural institutions that provided shelter against the outside storm of racism.

In the 20th century, that same creative conflict between these three schools of thought reappeared. Debaters included the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Black Panther Party and the Republic of New Africa, which sought to establish a separate black state within our borders as an exit strategy.

King offered an inspiring combination of the strategies of loyalty and voice. In 1960, when students in Greensboro, N.C., became frustrated with the slow pace of legal action favored by Thurgood Marshall, King was sent to discourage them from engaging in civil disobedience. The students told King to lead, follow or get out of the way. They were determined to liberate themselves. They understood the difficulties and were undeterred by the obstacles. Like King, they were willing to persevere toward justice even when it was inconvenient, and to suffer the consequences of their actions. Hope, not hopelessness, animated all that they did.

King paid a heavy personal price for his hope that America was redeemable. Twice his home was bombed; once, his wife and daughter were nearly killed. Surrounded by hundreds of angry, armed black men after that bombing, he discouraged retaliatory violence. He was assaulted several times, and jailed as well, but he remained steadfast in his commitment to nonviolence. He united black Americans behind the proposition that racism is evil in itself, not simply because white people visited it upon blacks, and that all must unite to combat evil. He warned us about the self-destructive path of violence, not only for blacks but for the whole nation.

One of the original arguments to justify slavery was that blacks were morally inferior and thus incapable of self-government. John C. Calhoun famously asserted: “There is no instance of any civilized colored race of any shade being found equal to the establishment and maintenance of free government.” Black efforts at self-liberation in the 19th and 20th centuries were based on the opposite assumption.

Today many black leaders defer to angry white progressives who make the same arguments about blacks’ lack of moral agency, reject the country’s founding principles, and seek to undermine its institutions. For months, the radical left has been exploiting the country’s genuine concern for fairness to keep blacks in a constant state of agitation, anger and grievance, urging them toward behavior that lives down to the slanderous stereotypes of white supremacists. The leaders of these movements insist that every inequity suffered by blacks is caused by institutional and structural racism, that they have no power to liberate themselves, and that they will remain oppressed until white people change. Even to raise the issue of what role self-determination plays for blacks earns you the label of “racist.”

Civil-rights organizations and their leadership, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, need to wake up before it’s too late. A faction of black leaders has been silent about, or complicit in, the takeover of the civil-rights movement by the radical left. The effect of this is not to glorify black achievement but to crucify low-income blacks, who are represented in national media outlets by their worst-behaved members, and bear the brunt of the attacks by the woke radical left on the cities where they live.

“Justice” for black America cannot be achieved by framing it solely through the distorted lens of the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others in fatal police encounters. For every unarmed black American killed by the police, hundreds are killed in neighborhood homicides.

Those who call for the defunding of police departments, such as leaders of the official Black Lives Matter organization, are silent about this inconvenient truth. They have a narrative and cannot let the facts get in the way. Their story is that the whole of American history is stained and the whole of America must be overthrown. When citizens declare that they support Black Lives Matter, do they share its opposition to the nuclear family, its objective of abolishing the police, and its view that the Christian cross is a symbol of white supremacy? These positions of the organization—language that has largely been scrubbed from its website—in no way improve the lives of black Americans. They give up on black America and encourage its needless suffering.

Like all Americans, blacks have triumphed over their circumstances only when they have adopted bourgeois virtues such as hard work, respect for learning, self-discipline, faith and personal responsibility. In the 19th century, Frederick Douglass found reading to be the key to his own personal liberation amid slavery, and he understood that whites deliberately withheld literacy from blacks precisely because it was so valuable. Bourgeois values drove blacks to build the powerful religious, fraternal, and other voluntary associations that helped them thrive in the worst days of Jim Crow and cultivated the essential virtues in the next generation.

There would have been no civil-rights movement without this. But radical progressives now insist that such virtues are the legacy of white supremacy, colonialist values that reflect the continuing bondage of blacks to oppressive Western culture. The only “authentic” expression of blackness in America, they claim, is the opposite of bourgeois self-restraint and discipline—indulging in the passions of the moment, whether anarchic rioting, insulting teachers or other unsalutary forms of expression. The radical left—disdaining exhortations toward work, family and faith as “respectability politics”—argues that blacks should feel free to indulge their “true” nature, echoing the age-old white-supremacist notion that said nature is violent, lascivious and incapable of self-restraint.

The slave masters’ trick of old was to dissuade blacks from adopting bourgeois values precisely so they could be kept in servitude. Marriage was forbidden and families were split apart. Douglass observed that slaves were encouraged to indulge in drink and debauchery during the holidays so they would be “led to think that there was little to choose between liberty and slavery. We felt, and very properly too, that we had almost as well be slaves to man as to rum. So, when the holidays ended, we staggered up from the filth of our wallowing, took a long breath, and marched to the field—feeling, upon the whole, rather glad to go, from what our master had deceived us into a belief was freedom, back to the arms of slavery.”

But there were always those who saw through the trick and used the holidays to hunt, make items for sale, visit distant family members, and hire out their own labor. Some of these were even able—eventually—to purchase their freedom.

Tellingly, leftist elites teach their own children the values of working and studying hard even as they encourage behavior among blacks that will make sure they remain uncompetitive but “authentic.” By the time young blacks today discover, as did the slaves of Douglass’s time, that freedom understood as “do whatever you feel like” is no way to build a worthwhile life, it will be too late. The fruits of the civil-rights movement’s hard labor—teaching the young to be so self-disciplined that they were able to resist responding in kind to hatred and abuse from whites—will have been lost.

We must turn away from the present course, which preaches despair rather than hope. Black achievement must be glorified. The crucifixion of black America by the radical left must halt. There is a grander, more fruitful future for us all.

Mr. Woodson, a veteran of the civil-rights movement, is founder and president of the Woodson Center and author, most recently, of “Lessons From the Least of These: The Woodson Principles.” Mr. Mitchell is a Washington Fellow at the Claremont Center for the American Way of Life and author of “American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time.”