Carney historical denialism

 

Prime Minister Carney promotes revisionist history while being smarmy about the USA. Carney is into denialism about Canada's origins. He derided USA Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his implied references to historical Christian nationalism when he spoke about the similarities of values between the USA and Europe.  

In contrast, Carney went out of his way to claim that Canada has civic nationalism, not the USA's historical character. I don't know what audience Carney was pitching to. However, Carney’s underlying attitude helps explain why Liberal Canada is not as successful as it could be. There is a lack of humility and accountability from the Canadian Liberal cadre. 

Prime Minister Carney does not want to know or express Canadian history. Lynette Bloedow says Bob Marley, the famous Jamaican who made Reggae a world-renowned music genre, quoted an African proverb in one of his songs. It said, 'In the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty.'  I want to put my own spin on it in relation to our politicians and the Peace Tower (Parliament). In the abundance of Scripture verses carved in the building, our politicians appear to be God-hating pagans. Every single day, politicians like our Prime Minister Mark Carney, walk right by the Peace Tower. They are not aware of the Scripture verses preaching the gospel to them from the Peace Tower, nor the Christian history laid down by our forebears.

Let me explain the contexts of just two of the 25 Scripture verses from the Peace Tower. These are in the West Stained Glass Window. One Scripture verse says, 'Thou shalt make thy way prosperous’. This comes from Joshua 1:9. The next Scripture verse, 'Wise in heart and mighty in strength', is from Job 9:4. But when Joshua 1:9 is read in context from verse 6, that verse in the window has a very specific meaning.

6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. 7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. 9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

When Job 9:4 is read in context from verse 1, it reads: 9 Then Job answered and said, 2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? 3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. 4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?

In recognition of the sacred, at the opening of the daily sitting of the House of Commons, the Speaker reads a prayer while all stand. Prayer has been part of the daily House proceedings since 1877. When finished, the House pauses for a moment of silence for private reflection. “Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, King Charles, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.”

(Forseth) Why is this important? Because of what just transpired on the world stage. Our Prime Minister does not want to acknowledge our history. He does not express humility or accountability. He promotes the concept of "Civic Nationalism" to distance Canada from the USA, thereby implying that Canada is superior in mind to the USA, a claim Carney derides as mere "Christian Nationalism".

In my view, Canada is a constitutional monarchy under the authority of a Judeo-Christian God. We were established as "The Dominion of Canada," as referenced in Psalm 72:8: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."

By legal definition, governance flows from the Crown. The Crown derives its authority from God, who is by definition the God of the Bible and no other. The King of Canada recently received his power and authority to become King, in a Christian Church with a Christian liturgy and many prayers, and thereby received a Christian Crown. Among numerous Christian symbols, he humbly prayed, "God of compassion and mercy, whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

While the Canadian administration is secular, non-partisan, and does not promote any religion, in 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada identified supporting principles that are included as unwritten elements of the very fabric of Canadian law: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with the following preamble: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  It is the God of the Bible to the exclusion of all others.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference, held from February 13 to 15, 2026. In his address, he spoke of Europe's common Christian heritage and how it gave rise to the Americas. He pointed to a common bond and a common destiny.

In contrast, our PM Mark Carney derisively labelled the Robio speech as promoting "Christian Nationalism". Carney claimed that Canada does not have Christian Nationalism but rather "Civic Nationalism." What is this Canadian fiction that our PM promotes? Mark Carney does not know our Christian history and our essence as a people. In fact, we have a great Christian Heritage. We should know our Canadian Christian history, political origins, and cultural foundations. The Christian ethic is the ancient struggle for responsibility, accountability, justice, freedom, and neighbourliness, as every soul is equal before a loving and just God.

(Rubio)  “Under President Trump, the United States will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration… And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference, and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe," said Secretary of State Marco Rubio as he delivered remarks at the Munich Security Conference in Germany. Rubio's remarks focused on a shared heritage of the transatlantic relationship with Europe, reforming the United Nations, European defence, mass migration, and securing supply chains. He also touched on the need for a relationship with China and negotiations to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War. His remarks were similar to those given by Vice President JD Vance a year earlier, as both stressed the importance of not losing a shared culture to mass migration. This implies the benefits of Christian heritage and its positive values.

Mark Carney deliberately chose to deliver his rejection of Christian nationalism to a Montreal audience, declaring that Canada is built on "civic nationalism," not Christian values. He downplayed our deep Christian heritage in favour of vague "inclusivity" and shared cold winters. But he avoided the very first words of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes the supremacy of God.

How does that square with erasing God from our founding story? Yet when speaking to Muslim communities, Carney has no trouble wrongly equating their faith with Canada: "The values of community, of generosity, and yes, of sacrifice. These are Muslim values; these are Canadian values."  Our Christian roots become minimized, but Muslim values are proudly declared "Canadian values"? Like his predecessor, Carney is rewriting history to fit a secular, arrogant, boastful, cultureless internationalist character.

Canadian society wasn't built on multiculturalism. It was forged by faithful Christian settlers who carried the supremacy of God into our laws, our motto, and our very identity. The freedoms and rights which flow from Christianity were foundational for the acceptance of waves of immigration, while with compassion, they tried to consider aboriginal peoples. To respond to "the French fact" and Quebec separatist sentiment, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced "multiculturalism" in 1971.

Carney's "civic nationalism" is a hollowing out of the soul of the nation that has kept us strong. Carney emphasized the importance of protecting our rights and our system of respecting all the people who live here. Speaking at the unveiling of Canada's Defence Industrial Strategy, Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the characterization by some in the Trump Administration of "Christian nationalism," and he made it clear that Canada is not of that nature.

Carney explained that Canadian nationalism is "Civic nationalism," that is respectful of people of all faiths, those with no faith, and respectful of the rights and diversity of Canadians. Carney said, "Mr. Rubio has spoken, and the American administration from time to time talks about Christian nationalism. It is not Canadian nationalism. Canadian nationalism is civic nationalism."

Carney may try to rewrite who we are as Canadians because he does not like being humble or accountable, as our King is. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world. Our newly added Charter in our Constitution that guarantees rights and freedoms, begins with a recognition of the supremacy of God. Our national anthem says, “God keep our land glorious and free!” We are a Dominion under God, inspired by Psalm 72:8: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."  This is also echoed in Canada's motto: 'A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for 'from sea to sea').

Moreover, our Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written enactment, without that context, may be misleading.

In practice, there have been other sources of unwritten constitutional law:

Conventions:

Constitutional conventions form part of the Constitution. They include the existence of the office of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the requirement that the Prime Minister either resign or request a dissolution and a general election upon losing a vote of "confidence" in the House of Commons. The existence and power of political Parties in the House of Commons is mostly unwritten.

Royal prerogative

Reserve powers of the Canadian Crown, being remnants of the powers once held by the British Crown, were reduced over time by the parliamentary system. Primarily, these are the Orders in Council, which give the government the authority to declare war, conclude treaties, issue passports, make appointments, make regulations, incorporate, and receive lands to the Crown.

Unwritten principles

Principles that are incorporated into the Canadian Constitution by the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867, include a statement that the Constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom", much of which is unwritten. Unlike mere conventions, these are justiciable. Amongst those principles most recognized as constitutional are federalism, liberal democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Others include responsible government, representation by population, judicial independence, no taxation without representation, and parliamentary supremacy. Also, the Governor General's unwritten powers are very broad but kept in reserve.

The government's philosophy is important and goes well beyond an academic discussion. It reflects the underlying political attitude and motives and explains why Canada has been financially unsuccessful since 2015. 

Canadians are hurting. In response, there is a lack of humility and accountability from the Canadian Liberal cadre. The evidence is that the Liberal Party's style of secular humanism and civic nationalism does not meet the Canadian human challenge of 2026.

Political Correctness Is Illegal

Main Mall Greenway - UBC

 

Political Correctness Is Illegal, Say These Professors Suing Their University

A group of academics at the University of British Columbia say the school’s D.E.I. (diversity-equity-inclusion) policies and practices, which include land acknowledgments, violate a law that requires universities to be “nonpolitical.”  

Article by Pranav Baskar Feb. 19, 2026 New York Times

Job candidates required to describe how they would advance “decolonization.”  A video that suggests starting meetings by identifying oneself as a “settler” on unceded native lands.  A political scientist who says he was instructed to teach game theory “from an Indigenous perspective.”

Each, a practice at the University of British Columbia, is now evidence in a lawsuit brought against the school by a group of professors who claim such social-justice efforts violate a provincial law requiring universities to stay out of politics.

The suit, filed last spring and currently under review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has set off a major legal and cultural battle at one of Canada’s top universities, in which each side accuses the other of trying to push an activist political agenda in the name of free speech.  The suit raises important questions about when public speech in a democratic society is political.

The professors who petitioned the court say the university’s measures promote a campus culture that punishes contrarian ideas and pressures academics to endorse progressive political positions with which they may disagree.  They seek to ban the university from a broad range of actions that include requiring job applicants to commit to diversity principles; and the making of so-called land acknowledgments, ceremonial statements which often precede public events and that note Canada is the ancestral land of Indigenous people.

The professors’ case hinges on a decades-old provincial law, called the University Act, which mandates that universities be “non-sectarian and nonpolitical in principle.”  But the law does little to clarify the bigger question before the court: What counts as political?

“In recent years, university administrators have given in to the calls to take political positions,” said Josh Dehaas, a lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a libertarian organization, who is representing the professors suing the university.  “In this particular era, the pressure they have given into is often progressive causes.”  Before 2020, he added, an accomplished academic did not need “to commit to D.E.I. principles to become a professor at U.B.C.”

In a brief submitted to the court, the university argued the professors have not shown proof of harm to their careers or liberties, and denied that either land acknowledgments or D.E.I. policies constitute “political activity” under the law.

Land acknowledgments, the university says, reflect a “legal fact” rather than a political belief — the property occupied by the university was never ceded via treaty by the original Indigenous occupants.   Furthermore, it says, no one on campus is mandated to make such pronouncements.

The university also says written statements by job applicants about their commitments to D.E.I. are not used as “screening tools.”  However, it adds, those statements can be used to disqualify a candidate who fails to uphold its principles.

The four professors bringing the suit have years of teaching experience at the university and include instructors of philosophy, political science and English. In hundreds of pages of affidavit material, the group portrays a university climate in which speaking out against left-wing positions risks professional consequences.

“When people in charge of the hiring, firing, and promotions are taking any side, that infringes on academic freedom,” said Mr. Dehaas, their lawyer.  “The pressures are so strong that they become de facto mandatory.”

The university has long been at the forefront of the movement to support the inherent rights of Canada’s Indigenous people.  The Vancouver campus is home to the Xwi7xwa Library for Indigenous studies, which according to the school’s website is “located on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ speaking xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people.”

Of the university’s 72,692 students across two campuses in Vancouver and Okanagan, 2,500 identify as Indigenous, according to the academy’s latest enrollment report.  And the leaders of another local tribe, the Sylix nation, condemned the lawsuit as regressive and insulting.

Andrew Irvine, a philosophy professor at the university’s Okanagan campus, who is among those suing the school, has in his public writings about academic freedom taken positions that critics say trivializes the history of Indigenous people and racism.

In response to such criticism Professor Irvine wrote in a National Post article that the response from Indigenous groups mischaracterized his position.  He said the professors take no view on land acknowledgments other than that they are political in nature, and that “our case in no way attempts to override or diminish Indigenous rights.”  The campus is divided — unsurprisingly, the professors who brought the suit might say — along political lines.

 

Viewpoint: United Nations-aligned laws create two-tiered society

'The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand'

Feb. 11, 2026

Powell River-Sunshine Coast MLA Randene Neill, who is also BC’s minister of water, land and resource stewardship, made no additional explanations or assuaged public anxiety with her answers to Powell River Westview Ratepayers Association on Feb 6.

Neill was invited to respond to written pre-submitted questions about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. BC premier David Eby has said the government will be amending DRIPA before the summer break of 2026 to scale back the power courts have in shaping reconciliation efforts. Recent court decisions have created confusion about what the act means in practice. Eby said his government is also planning to appeal the court decision to defend private property rights, but no documents have been filed.

However, Eby does not admit his legislation created all the legal problems. He won’t admit DRIPA is not fixable, and that the legislation cannot pretend to be one thing (social reconciliation -peace -certainty -trust) while being another —a big highway to unending demands. The NDP is the only government in the world that has made such enabling legislation at the behest of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Meanwhile, BC Conservatives want to repeal DRIPA, claiming the government has continued to cause uncertainty by signing land-use agreements with First Nations without widespread public input, consultation and social approval. The NDP claims settlement deals are the business of government to government, and that the public is only peripherally relevant to the process.

DRIPA is dividing British Columbians, say BC Conservatives, and people are being left to wonder whether land access, development rights and long-standing property law can change overnight, without significant public debate.

Eby says Indigenous claims to land title predates the DRIPA legislation and First Nations title was not invented by DRIPA. He said it is grounded in Canada's constitution and repealing DRIPA would remove the road map they have with First Nations for how to resolve matters outside of court. It would bring more conflicts in the court and slow projects down. Repealing DRIPA would return us to a darker, conflict-oriented time and set us back a generation in our relationship with First Nations, Eby said.

However, in my view, under the guise of “reconciliation,” the province is being reshaped—not by democratic consensus, but by ideology embedded into law.

For example, the Cowichan Ruling of 2025 was a decision legitimizing aboriginal title over private property homeowners in Richmond, based on questionable hearsay evidence from 150 years ago. This ruling, influenced by NDP provincial government “practice directives” prioritizing Indigenous reconciliation claims, discards the established rule of law and creates unequal treatment based on race. It is certain that every legal loophole and advantage will be always exploited to the sole advantage of the claimants.

Residents of Okanagan Falls, a community that is 97 per cent non-Indigenous, were blindsided to learn their efforts to incorporate and become a city have now subjected them to DRIPA. The neighbouring Osoyoos First Nation has claimed it wants Okanagan Falls’ name, and potentially street names, changed to their preference. They also want crown land removed from proposed city boundaries.

The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand. United Nations-aligned laws create a two-tiered society, where a privileged group’s legal authority takes precedence over the interests of the majority. That’s not reconciliation—it is one-way capitulation, including implied social guilt.

At the ratepayers meeting, Neill said she would vote for amendment and not the repeal of DRIPA. The Conservatives alternative is to completely repeal and replace with more traditional negotiation processes.