Neil E. Thomson
865
Alview Crescent
Kamloops,
BC
V2B
6C5
nthomson20@gmail.com
Catherine
Tait
President
and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada
205
Wellington Street West
Toronto,
Ontario
M5V
3G7
There are many people who think the CBC has run its course
as a useful institution. I am of the mind that the CBC has a useful place in
our country as an objective source of information. Now, more than ever in
history, we need to build a national narrative that builds societal harmony,
that recognizes the values of our nation as expressed in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and draws from history in a manner that gives Canadians an
accurate map of reality.
The reality is that our national narrative is being
fragmented, by the political process distorting the population's map of reality
due to competing rhetoric, the advent and uptake of social media, subversive
actors within Canada and various subversive non – Canadian actors (state actors
like Russia, China and other actors like foreign special interest groups).
Given this reality, we need a vetted, non-partisan data stream to the public.
Liberal Bias
The CBC has always been left-leaning;
the bias has been evident to me since I’ve become aware of political discourse.
The challenge I am having now as a long-time listener and friend of the CBC is
that your organization has become overtly supportive of the Liberal Government.
You have become a cheerleader for government policy, and you permit programming
that, in my opinion, is more than just bias, but distorts the map of reality of
the Canadian Public.
I could dedicate time to giving
you examples, I think it suffices to say, I perceive there to be a liberal bias
in CBC’s reporting of the news and many others do as well – you have a problem.
This is at a time when the politicization of issues is tearing us apart. We need now,
more than ever, to have an objective assessment of government performance to
counter the spin the political process generates. We need an organization that
brokers in the truth, truthfully.
As the CBC is conducting itself
now, it is sowing the seeds of its own demise. It is speaking to a very narrow
slice of the population – rather than harmonizing the national narrative, it is
contributing to division.
I have over the years enjoyed the
CBC’s journalism, respected the commentary, and felt an appreciation for the
relative superiority of CBC reporting and Canadian journalism generally. I
listen extensively to CBC radio, our local morning show, Spark with Nora Young,
Day Six, Quirks & Quarks Host with Bob McDonald and many more and find this
programming informative and interesting.
It would be a shame to lose this programming, by allowing a perception of
bias to diminish Canadian Public’s faith in the CBC to the point there is no
one there to defend you.
Excerpt from my recent book – On
Canadian Governance
Solidifying Canadian Culture – what to do
The events of the past few years,
primarily the Covid-19 response, but also, the disaster response in British
Columbia and the events related to Ukraine have brought serious societal
fissures and governance deficiencies into resolution. The propensity for every
challenge that faces us to be distorted by political discourse and then the
extreme division it is causing has become alarming. There are many causal
factors at play. The most damaging one is the fragmentation of our
nation’s narrative, the cleaving of social perspective between “progressives”
and “anti-capitalism” movements versus the “establishment”. This internal
competition for hearts and minds is played upon by external players whose
interests are served by exacerbating social division.
Canada is an exemplary country.
We educate our people. We have a compassionate social perspective, and we enjoy
a standard of living that puts us at the pinnacle of human existence. The
social strife that has emerged threatens both the egg and the goose. There are
movements afoot that are keen to throw away the various systems and
institutions that provided us with all we have. I observe governments,
businesses, professionals, and members of the public conducting themselves in
contempt of the foundational elements of our society, treating fundamentals
like the rule of law, hard-won civil liberties as hurdles to get over, rather
than attending to both the spirit and the letter of the law. When foundational
elements of our society, the very principles our country is founded on, are
seen to be manipulated or ineffective a crack opens for further division fueled
by “revolutionary” and competing narratives.
What is missing is an overarching
narrative, one that is held by us all. I have posted Section 7 of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms on various social media platforms and encountered people
afraid to affirm its validity openly and strongly, yet they will in confidence
- I hope this concerns you. In my youth attending our public education system,
there were many many instances when teachers would contrast our free society
with that of the Soviet Union. George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was read aloud
to me by my teacher in grade 6 and we talked about the evils of unchecked and
centralized state power. We would encounter a clear and common narrative that
our way of life, our governance modes, and our market system are the best.
There are two things Canadians need to know, that they are presently the most
prosperous people in human history and how that happened – unless priority is
given to ensuring that Canadians do know, our society will unravel. All we’ve
built here will implode under the weight of a people with maps of reality
distorted by political spin and the voices of dissidents foreign and domestic.
The first step in the process
then is agreeing on a narrative that serves to stabilize and support our
country and our values and secondly, propagandizing that narrative. One
symbolic gesture to start the process would be to have every member of
parliament stand at attention in front of the parliament buildings while the
first 15 sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms scroll by on big
screens with Old Canada playing and the entire undertaking being streamed to
every media channel in the country. The process would close with the
Governor-General giving a short speech extending to Canadians permission to
preserve and protect the values expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
with vigour and pride. Our people and the enemies of freedom need to see that we
stand together and for something.
Having agreed on the theme of the
overarching narrative, the government could actively promote the narrative
through various initiatives – more intensive Canadian Studies in schools.
Furthermore, the government could actively market the narrative via various
media forums. Further, the subversion of western values is hardly contained
within our borders – it is far-reaching. We need a collective effort on the
part of the CBC in concert with like-minded entities like the BBC, ABC and
others to tell the story of our prosperity – a truth demonstrated by merely
listing the most prosperous peoples in the world – the G20 to start – who have
gained their prosperity through the combination of civil rights, a market
economy and robust social support.
Unless we fill the void the
absent narrative leaves, others will fill it with their own interests in mind;
the assent of authoritarianism will continue unabated. Shakespeare taught us
that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, however, unless the pen is used
pervasively and persuasively apathy will leave no other option than the sword.
The world is standing on a precipice. Rarely has our way of life been more
challenged – the “dark clouds of authoritarianism” are looming – action is required
now.
Climate Change
We need objective assessment and honest reporting on climate
policy in Canada. There has been real damage done to our economy in the name of
climate change – with a policy that is detached from reality. I can demonstrate on
several fronts that our economy has been damaged frivolously. When I listen to
the CBC, I hear an unquestioning stream of “support” for climate policy and the
overall climate agenda and very little questioning.
Our present basket of climate legislation in Canada has failed
to move us away from fossil fuel use or toward responsible use of fossil fuels,
has pointlessly damaged our energy sector and has left us unable to respond to
Europe’s energy needs, thereby financing Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is a
calamitous outcome that is presently being left unaddressed by any branch of
government.
One can recognize that there are serious environmental
challenges facing us all and still have a healthy debate on approach. The
propensity to label people questioning present policy as “climate deniers” or
the demonization of people opposed to some initiatives is damaging and must be
challenged; the CBC has a role to play here.
Covid Reporting
I am an advocate for vaccines.
I am also a champion for human rights and the principles
expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Vax Card program in
British Columbia was a de facto forced medication program – it was very
coercive. I heard very little if any discussion in opposition to the program
from the CBC. There is a massive body of law, including related to section 7
challenges, that demands that all medical treatment be voluntary, or that medical
treatment can be refused. The Charter Rights breaches and infringements that occurred
as a result of Covid policies need to be examined and published.
One of the issues that has been present throughout the
pandemic has been the question of medical freedom, the right to the domain over
mind and body. The right to medical choice is enshrined in our legal system.
Normally, our right to medical choice is governed by Section 7 of the Charter –
The right to life, liberty, and security of person. The spirit of Section 7,
heavily distilled is as follows, one can do as they please absent harm to
others. The only means by which this state of liberty can be interrupted is by
the application of fundamental law. The pandemic response was wrought with
infringements and breaches of this right and others – none of which have been
covered by the CBC in a meaningful way. There is no compelling evidence I can
find when contextualizing the pandemic response to the fair balance test, that
justified the response that was undertaken in many cases.
It is critical that there is post-Covid policy assessment by
objective third parties, the CBC has a role to play here also. To date, I’ve
heard nothing comprehensive come from the CBC on the subject. I have been
reading other sources that indicate that the Covid policy was a catastrophic
failure – effectively stating that the Covid policy caused more harm than good.
As one who consumes a lot of news from the CBC, I want to
see an objective assessment of the Covid response.
Convoy Reporting
What compelled me to write this
letter is the completely inadequate way the “Truckers’ Convoy” was covered. The
new word of choice from the left was used liberally, “populists”, code now for
non-intellectuals, racists and ult-right were directed toward the Truckers. CBC
programs reporting offering “retrospective analysis” of the convoy featured
Donald Trump early in the program – intentionally, I believe, to associate the
Truckers with Trump-style politics. What I witnessed in the coverage was very
close to pro-government propaganda, rather than, reporting that brokered in complete ideas. None of the nuances associated with the issues being raised
there were given coverage, the CBC sensationalized news in a manner that makes
CNN and Fox news look unadulterated.
Gun Control Reporting
I hear in great deal pro-gun control reporting in the form
of detailed reporting on “mass’ shootings in the US. In one instance 3 people
were shot in the US, while this event is a upsetting event, the extensive
reporting on these events tends to distort public perception in relation to
Canadian gun ownership. There is no justification for the recent gun control
initiatives on the part of the federal government. Please see below an open
Letter to Justine Trudeau. The public’s perception of risk associated with
Canadian firearm ownership is distorted and it needs to be corrected. The present efforts on
the part of the government are a complete waste of resources.
The Honourable Justin
Trudeau
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
K1A 0A6
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
Dear Sir,
RE: Firearm Legislation
I can demonstrate clearly that there is no justification for the most
recent government gun control initiatives. When the issue is contextualized to
societal risks generally, a person legally owning a firearm of any kind fails
to make muster as a justification for a governmental intrusion on the right to
own a firearm. There is a fulsome body of law in relation to property rights
and the expropriation of same. There is also a long-standing cultural and
(British / Canadian) legal tradition dating back 400 years in support of
citizen ownership of firearms. Further, and more importantly, Section 7 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is excited in relation to this matter, both
under the rubric of liberty generally and security of person. Further again,
Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is excited, as these
government actions unjustifiably discriminate against an unenumerated class of
people. Please, let me reason with you, please consider the
following.
Excerpt from my
recent book – On Canadian Governance
A useful concept to use to consider in relation to gun control is called
the “Availability Heuristic Salient” (AHS). In instances where the
AHS affects public opinion, the ease of imagining an example or the vividness
and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than the actual
statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or
mentally "available", the single example is considered representative
of the whole, rather than as just a single example in a range of data. Salient
events tend to distort the judgement of risk.
There are issues where Availability Heuristic Salient drives policy
that is detached from mathematical reality and this distorts public
perception and the political process, one such policy area is gun
control. People who are unfamiliar with firearms are intimidated by them. They
hear about mass shootings on television, they see movies with
guns going off. They have repeated exposure to the most extreme
outcome of firearm use and the pro-gun control lobby uses the high level of
saliency to support, what is truly an irrational position.
The government of Canada spent approximately 2.7 billion dollars on a
long gun registry. Then, in 2012 the long gun registry was scrapped with no
significant effect on public safety – 2.7 billion dollars wasted. The
government of Canada at the time of writing, is embarking on the banning of
certain classes of firearms and implementing a freeze on handguns. The ban on
certain classes of firearms involves a “buyback” program – the total cost of
which ranges from 2.6 to 6.7 billion dollars according to a Fraser Institute
article written July 30, 2021.
According to Statistics Canada “In 2020, police reported a total of 743
homicide victims in Canada or a rate of 1.95 per 100,000 population. For 277 of
these victims, a firearm was used to commit the homicide (for a rate of 0.73
homicides per 100,000 population). “Overall, one in four (25%) female victims
of firearm-related violent crime were victimized by a current or former spouse
or another intimate partner.”
|
Deaths (Risk) / 100,000 |
|
|
Cause
of Death |
Rate /
100,000 |
|
Female
IPD (Intimate Partner Deaths) |
0.046 |
|
Female
Deaths by Firearms |
0.180 |
|
Firearm
Deaths Excluding Suicide |
0.180 |
|
Total
Deaths by Firearms |
0.730 |
|
Motor
Vehicle Fatalities |
4.600 |
|
50-Years
or Older Male – Aspirin |
10.400 |
|
Suicide |
10.600 |
|
Opioid-
and Stimulant-related Harms |
19.500 |
|
Medically
Preventable Accidents |
66.000 |
|
Tree
Falling (Occupational Risk in the United States) |
357.000 |
In Canada, 277 people per year are killed in gun-related incidents (one
would be too many) yet we are spending as much as $8 billion on gun control and
nothing on a medical records system when in Canada 25,000 people die each year
from preventable medical accidents. In the context of rational thought, medical
accidents should be our priority.
Here are a few points to illustrate how politicization distorts response
to real-world problems. There is no factual support that the Canadian public
will be safer because of the billions spent on gun control, yet the government
is doing it anyway. The legally restricted guns and their some 2,000,000 owners
represent no threat to the safety of the public. The portion of Canadians that
are gun owners, regardless of what kind of firearm they own represent no threat
to public safety. Yet the government is bent on confiscating private property
and intruding on gun owners' most fundamental rights. This issue has been
political in the extreme for generations – liberals supporting gun control,
conservatives against gun control. Gun control policy is most strongly
supported by the urban female voter, and gun control as a wedge issue excites
the respective party bases. The fact is, gun ownership is a non-issue, no one
needs to spend time on it.
To further illustrate how costly this phenomenon is, let's take a moment
to think about what might be done with the funds that are being wasted due to
the public’s map of reality being distorted – $8 billion would provide $100,000
to 80,000 Autism kids, a Japanese company in India built the equivalent of a
Vancouver to Hope rapid transit line for approximately $8 billion, we could
provide 16,000 $500,000 forgivable business start-up loans, we could start a
bond return augmentation program to incent innovation in key industries like environmentally
friendly products and services, we could put $2 Million toward 4000 first
nation water systems … you’re getting the picture. I've used gun control as an
example above, but there are many other examples to draw from, a fact that
amplifies the damage being done.
A Case for Self Defence
Why, in Section 7 Declaration of Rights of 1688, was self-defence
recognized as valid (then directed to protestants, in contemporary Canada it
would apply to all). And then again, why, in 1892 was self-defence considered a
valid reason to lawfully carry a handgun and in 2023 self-defence has fallen by
the wayside. Whether one is threatened by a rabid animal or a homicidal person,
the threat is there in the moment, and the 10-minute response time of the
police is unhelpful. The fact is, the police are unable to protect against
these sorts of threats, and citizens are left to fend for themselves. This is
an unacceptable circumstance, the right to life and security of a person must
be attended to by the state, if the state is unable to attend to the section
seven rights of citizens, it must permit citizens to attend to them on their
own accord and by their own good judgement. This is especially true in remote
locations such as farms etc.
Self-defence is a valid reason to have a firearm, defending one’s life
is a right and defending the life of another is a moral obligation. This value
is expressed in the United Nations doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, while
directed at state scale instances, the moral obligation to protect remains
valid at the individual level.
Rather than making people, women, into victims that must wait for help,
we should be empowering them to defend themselves and others, as they do in so
many countries around the world. With correct training, a civilian can be as
effective and safe in the use of a firearm as a police officer. Had we taken
this attitude and taught the women victims of the Polytechnique shooting how to
care for themselves it is likely some, if not all, would be with us today. England,
with very strict gun control laws, had a higher rate of gun crime through a
period of IRA violence than the US – when people decide to do something illegal
and a firearm is their chosen means to execute, they find guns - there will
always be a man with a gun.
The attitude that accompanies the insistence that state actors are the
only people qualified to attend to this most personal challenge, is part of the
devolution of the individual’s standing in Canada. There is a greater
insistence by the government to force people to depend on officialdom rather
than to be self-reliant. This is a dangerous trend because, in matters related
to self-defence the state is unable to effectively respond to certain types of
threats that befall an individual - no matter how committed a police officer
is, they can only drive a car so fast, and most acts of violence occur in an
instant.
The Government’s Insistence on “Disarming” People is a Trigger – A case
for returning to the status quo.
Many people are concerned by the government’s insistence on “disarming”
people, particularly in the face of there being no data to support the
government’s actions. The imposition of the gun registry and its subsequent
removal in 2012 indicated no marked impact on public safety in having it or not
having it. The recent spat of gun violence in Toronto for example
has been the product of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. The legal gun
community is almost entirely absent in the illegal use of firearms.
” Indeed, there are more than two million PAL holders in Canada; each
one has been vetted by the RCMP and is checked nightly for any violation
through the “continuous eligibility screening” program. Firearm owners are also
exceptionally law-abiding. PAL holders are less likely to commit murder than
other Canadians. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of PAL holders accused of
homicide varied from 6 to 21, averaging 12 accused per year out of
approximately 2 million PAL holders. The number of PAL holders increased from
1,979,054 to 2,206,755 over this same time period, so the annual rate over 20
years was 0.63 accused per 100,000 PAL holders.”
Fraser Institute November 25, 2022
This reality is triggering a negative reaction, a fearful reaction in
some cases, in this otherwise exceptionally law-abiding group many are
perceiving an injustice.
Conclusion
We are at a critical juncture in Canada, a confluence of factors has
emerged: post-Covid realities, the fragmentation of our national narrative and
societal fissures that have emerged from these events, the “real” two solitudes
in Canada - rural and urban are diverging rapidly and, finally, the events in
Ukraine are driving the imperative to vigorously prepare for national defence.
The gun control initiatives of the present government are serving to amplify
division generally. Furthermore, the gun control initiatives are
attacking and alienating the very law-abiding citizens who possess the
fortitude and predilection to come to arms should it be required. The funds
that will be consumed by this effort should proceed would be better directed at
any number of initiatives – this type of expenditure on what one can only
deduct to be political pandering is irresponsible.
There are no grounds by which the government can assert that it is fair,
sound and reasonably necessary to confiscate private property in the form of
firearms from law-abiding citizens. These people are exemplary citizens, vetted
for criminality and with a longstanding track record of responsible firearm
ownership. Whether these individuals have a 3 or 30-shot clip, an automatic
weapon or a single shot or a handgun, their presence is benign; this fact is
clearly demonstrated by the data. The legal gun owners of Canada are being
discriminated against due to the politicization of the issue distorting the map
of reality of the body general. The data is clear that the risk associated with
gun ownership as has been the status quo post-2012 warrants no further
government intervention when you contextualize the very limited risk of legal
gun ownership with the full breadth of human endeavour.
Please reconsider your actions in this regard.
Kind Regards,
Neil E. Thomson
We do need another perspective on this issue, objective assessment is
important here also.
Conclusion
These are some of the issues that I think CBC can make a
retrospective assessment of, and contribute in a meaningful way to correcting
some of the distortions in public perception that the political process has
generated.
Sincerely,
Neil E. Thomson
