BY MICHAEL THOMAS
Has anyone ever heard such a thing as a vulnerable social infrastructure? Well, if you are laughing stop it right now, because David Hill (a city councilor for Ward 3 Barrhaven West in Ottawa) is very serious about this. Let us find out how serious he and his regime are about silencing Canadians using bylaws.
Recently a bylaw called the “bubble zone” bylaw to protect vulnerable social infrastructure during protests and demonstrations was tabled to be passed. According to Hill, this so-called bylaw is needed to protect certain places from “hateful demonstrations.”
As should be, citizens had several questions about this bylaw which Hill thought he could answer. Question one was, “If passed Wednesday, will this motion introduce a new bylaw by Thursday?” Hill’s answer was, “No!”
Hill explained, “This motion is the first of many steps in designing a bubble zone bylaw. If passed by the council, Wednesday’s motion will task staff with reviewing how other municipalities have designed similar legislation asking staff to provide their recommendations on whether such a law is: constitutional, implementable, or even needed. This motion will not be the final decision on a ‘vulnerable social infrastructure’ bylaw, but the first part of a longer conversation that will include a report brought to the committee for a vote in the new year.”
Question two asked, “What the heck is vulnerable social infrastructure and why are we considering protections for buildings?” Again, Hill rambled his rendition of an answer saying, “We are referring to community buildings that vulnerable groups attend. These are places of: worship, childcare facilities and schools, hospitals, old age homes, and community centers. If implemented next year, a vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw would not limit demonstrations at city hall, or Parliament Hill, or on city streets, in city parks or outside of other government buildings.”
Notice how he switched from vulnerable buildings to community buildings that vulnerable groups attend; this is the trademark of a person with (misleading intentions.) It is called double speak, or word play.
Question three was, “Why is a bylaw necessary?” Hill’s attempt at an answer was lengthy at best, but lacking, “Over the last several years, we have seen a concerning rise of protests directed at community members. In 2017, the worshippers at a mosque in downtown Toronto had to push through an angry crowd advocating for banning Islam. Last year, at three Nepean high schools, students had to wade through protesters and counter-protesters just to get to class. Five people were arrested as the demonstrations turned ugly, mere meters away from where students were trying to learn. This fall, a protest was held outside the Jewish Community Centre in Ottawa, where members had to navigate through demonstrators, and some had diapers thrown at them.”
Did he say this bylaw is to protect places of worship, old-age homes, and schools?
Where was Hill when Artur Pawlowski was under siege in his “place of worship” by Canada’s COVID Gestapos? Where was this Bylaw to stay 100 meters from this pastor’s church Mr. Hill?
Canadians are wondering, who killed all those old people aka senior citizens in those “old age homes”? Why did those killers not stay 100 meters away from them? Remember, they were in old age homes, Mr. Hill.
Canadian parents are asking, what is happening to toddlers and children in Canadian schools now? Who is dancing for those poor small children and what are these so-called dancers and story-time readers wearing? Mr. Hill. These poor children need 100-meter bylaws to protect them from this, after all, you said schools remember?
Coun. Allan Hubley, Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, and Hill are the frontmen behind this “bubble zone” bylaw. Hill’s words were, “I think it’s a good motion, and I’m proud to have worked with them on it.”
I sometimes wonder if some politicians think before they speak. Why would you say you are proud to have worked on a bylaw, and then ask your staff to provide their recommendations on whether such a law is: constitutional, implementable, or even needed?
However, it takes more than a fool to come up with penalties of up to $100,000 for violating this so-called bylaw. Canada seems to be in overdrive when it comes to creating bills and bylaws to silence its population.
Patrick Brown (Brampton’s Mayor) has just pulled off the same safety stunt in Brampton. Brown got his folks to pass the same bylaw banning protests within 100 meters from what he deemed religious spaces and setting fines of $500 up to a staggering $100,000 to back up his Bylaw. This is the same Patrick Brown who used the Brampton Hockey facility with his boys while telling “Bramptonites” to stay home and observe (COVID Plandemic) mandates, remember?
Remember Bill C-11, Bill C-293, Bill- this, and Bill-that. These bills came on the heels of each other leaving Canadians to wonder if they are actually in Canada or China. Bills to silence you on social media, bills to stop the spread of hate speech, threats of jail time for disagreeing with things that are upside-down and outright wrong.
Canadians, it is ok to be nice, but there comes a time when niceness alone is not enough. The time is now to say no to authoritarianism and fascist handcuffs disguised as bylaws and bills.