Canadians of the 1990's are engaged in the most significant struggle for rights and freedoms in the history of our democracy. Events will soon enter a new phase. By all indications, the ruling cabinet clique in Ottawa has succeeded to completely intimidate or terrify almost all the rank and file of the governing party. And why not? Have you not felt their awesome power? Can you not imagine what it is like to serve right under these fanatics, to be their subordinates, to be bound so tightly by whatever it is that binds?
But we are not lackeys. There is not a chance this abuse of the federal power can beat us. We are too many, our talents and resources, too great.
However, it is possible that we could defeat ourselves. And it is prudent to consider how this might happen. One way, perhaps the only way, is if we fail to address the critical need for a renewal of leadership in the firearms community. If you are a leader, it is a good time to re-assess who you are, what kind of leader you are, and the kind of leadership that is going to be demanded of you in the months and years ahead.
Regardless of the outcome of the current political battle, there is one consideration of the utmost importance, and that is the outcome of the war. We can afford to lose a fight here and there, so long as we do not lose sight of survival. If we survive, we win. The question then, is whether or not there are forces are at play that put at risk our survival. And if so, what needs to be done so that we can turn them to our advantage.
There are several key factors that portend our potential demise. It is important to note that every one of them is under control of the leadership in our movement. How these factors influence the situation and how our leaders are able to influence these factors, will determine the eventual outcome. These factors may be described as:
Sacred Cows
Almost universally, it is a saw of the current leadership that operations outside the law are not for them or their organization. "We are law-abiding citizens". "I cannot condone those who break the law". Fair enough. However, there is a growing air of hypocrisy in the way these platitudes are throw about by people who in reality are quite willing to benefit from the actions of outlaws, so long as they themselves do not have to share in the risks and responsibilities.
The time has come to challenge the validity of these statements, to question where this kind of leadership is going to lead us, and to examine the underlying implication that the firearms community must not under any circumstances organize to operate outside the laws of Canada.
A good place to start is to consider the scenario on the day Bill C-68 comes into law. Then, to compare it with the situation that would exist if somehow C-68 was defeated. On the one hand, our rulers in Ottawa will be drunk with victory and newfound power. How could things be any different? Just think how desperately they have gone after these powers, and how much they are prepared to put all sides at risk just to get them. Do you really believe that somehow these powers are not going to be used fearsomely against you?
On the other hand, if somehow the government were to lose the vote in Parliament, just imagine how enraged they will be. Imagine how vengefully they are going to lash out with the full force and fury of the existing powers embedded in C-17. What would be the difference to us?
The first and most serious strategic error of the firearms community was to pin all hopes on the outcome of a political battle which, even if it was won, we were bound to lose. Those who may still believe that compromise and negotiation are the answer, have completely failed to appreciate that the more concessions we wrest from such a grudging and vindictive government as the one we've got, the more intensely they are going to abuse the unwarranted powers they already have and any new powers gained from a compromise deal. No such concessions have been forthcoming anyway, despite the very best efforts of the leaders of our community to establish a reasoned dialogue. From the outset of this needless, pointless, wasteful and increasingly volatile conflict which the government initiated without provocation, the government intentionally has turned a deaf ear.
Under these circumstances, both endpoints delineating any possible compromise of C-68 and every other point in between are going to have exactly the same outcome. Under these circumstances, where is the compromise? What is to negotiate?
This is the frightening nature of the tragedy unleashed by Jean Chretien. He appointed and let slip the dogs of war. Now, he is neither willing nor strong enough to draw them back. Historical forces predominate. No one is in control.
Democracy - Down for the Eight Count
The firearms community up to now has employed some old-fashioned democratic political tools to combat something never before seen nor even thought possible to exist in this country; something outside the realm of anything in our collective experience. Against it our democratic methods have failed. Has democracy itself failed?
If Canadians everywhere deny democracy a place of refuge at least somewhere; if we fail to provide a sanctuary amongst ourselves at least within our own small groups; then democracy can not and will not prevail against an ideology that allows the national government to give itself virtually unlimited powers without the approval of our elected representatives in Parliament.
This says nothing of the betrayal of democracy by our parliamentarians. Willingly and shamelessly they continue to trade away the rights and freedoms of citizens, at the same time they surrender without quarrel yet more of the rightful authority of Parliament to act in this or any other matter. But that is the approach to law and law-making in which C-68 has been spawned.
This corrupt and decaying system of government did not appear overnight. Slowly and insidiously it has festered in the soil of legislative, judicial and constitutional actions over the past 25 years; actions wherein the prime directive has been a mindless pursuit to make Canada different from the United States.
What great success. Indeed, we are now different. So different, the Canadian system of law and governance has slipped its last mooring to the founding principles of liberal democracy. It is truly ironic the coup de grace to Canadian liberty will be delivered by a so-called Liberal government.
But that is what we are up against. We are fighting The Big Lie. And the power of The Big Lie is that the truth about The Big Lie is so unbelievable and so radical, that individuals who merely try to describe it sound so unbelievably radical that we dismiss them. The bigger the lie, the more effective the lie. And that is why the democrats in Canada are getting hammered.
But if we stop professing the truth, or if the government succeeds in stopping us, the truth will never come to light.
Having reached this conclusion, it is logical to advance an unvarnished appraisal of C-68, including the government framework that created it and the apparatus that is being put in place to enforce it. If you look at all the pieces of this puzzle and assemble them in the context of 20th century history, the system reveals itself for exactly what it is; the embodiment of fascist ideology:
Unlimited government power to give the government unlimited power.
The circumvention and emasculation of the elected body.
Police agitation for the powers of a police state.
Unlimited powers of search and seizure without warrant, or justification, or compensation, or right of redress or appeal.
The vilification and laying of blame against a peaceful and law-abiding minority group for the crimes of others.
Mass police registration of millions of law-abiding citizens and the keeping of criminal records-like information on every one.
Pronouncements of guilt against citizens unless they can prove themselves innocent.
The power to fabricate new criminal offences and new punishments overnight, to be executed the following day.
The making of criminal offences against citizens merely because their papers are not in order.
De facto denial of the right to self defence, by means of the policy to lay automatic charges of assault, manslaughter or murder against each and every ordinary citizen who uses a firearm in the defence of life or property, no matter what the circumstances.
The massive diversion of national resources to wage an ideological campaign against the native and traditional way of life.
Massive propaganda.
A parliamentary ban on reproductions of the text of the law.
The stifling of debate in Parliament by means of closure, imposed well before the debate has even started.
And last but not least, provisions for the total exemption of government officials and the friends of government and the political allies of government, under the same law that so roundly condemns others.
Definition of Law
Law can be defined as "a body of rules recognized by a country, state, province, municipality or community as binding on its members". By this common definition, C-68 does not qualify as law. That would require us to contort the definition of law to something like, "any body of arbitrary, unspecified, and unlimited rules or any proposal for such rules or proposed changes to such rules, whether codified or uncodifed, which on approval by the government of the day without approval of the elected body, become immediately binding on the citizenry."
Codification of Law
The original reason that laws in general and criminal law in particular were codified by post-feudal society, was to destroy the power of lords and monarchs to govern through fear and intimidation as was their custom. By changing the laws of the royal court unexpectedly and often illogically, rulers were able to keep their subjects continually on edge and off guard. Since only the monarch and a handful close to him could know of intended changes, only they could be experts in law, and only the monarch could change the law instantly if somehow someone tried to use the law against his interests of the moment. For centuries, this method of ruling ensured that no rival centre of expertise in law could develop to challenge the absolute authority of the monarch.
All this changed with the advent of codified law as demanded and often bloodily imposed by the citizens of monarchical societies. In conjunction with the development of printing, a code of law provided a sense of stability in law. For the first time, all of the citizens and their legal representatives could know the letter of the law and could feel secure in a relatively unchanging law.
Now, this concept is to be overturned. In the name of progress, Canada is stepping back centuries to a time of conflict, instability and civil war; to a kind of neo-authoritarianism that could charitably be described as the divine right of governments.
As the perfect expression for this ideology, C-68 contain a treacherous and byzantine body of rules binding on the citizenry. It also is characterized by the absence of rules binding on the government, and by other rules which exempt the government itself from the law, as well as anyone else the government chooses to exempt.
In the cold light of history, C-68 is not law at all, nor does it uphold the rule of law, but it is the embodiment of lawlessness and it inaugurates the rule of lawlessness and lawless government in Canada.
Law and Democracy
It is also relevant to note that the common definition of law makes only a cursory and indirect reference to any relationship between law and democracy, specifically "a body of rules recognized by ...a community...". That is because there is no such natural relationship. Democracy can be found at its best or its worst in primitive tribal societies with few laws, and at its best or its worst in advanced nations with a highly developed legal industrial complex. Canadians should not in any way assume that our complicated system of law or government provides the slightest protection from the ravages of tyranny. Clearly it does not.
In upholding the law for its own sake, we defend neither freedom nor democracy, but have missed the point. And the point is that law is not democratic if it is rejected by the community on which it is binding. No one disputes that C-68 is expressly and specifically intended to bind the firearms community. Since it is also widely recognized that this Bill has been overwhelmingly rejected and condemned by that same community, C-68 has not the least democratic legitimacy and never will.
The Democratic Bounds of the Democratic Process
There is, of course, the aspect of the elected parliamentary majority of the governing party, and the opinions of the majority of Canadians. First of all, these parliamentarians were not elected on a platform to engage in the wholesale destruction of the rights, freedoms and protections of Canadians, nor to attack the firearms community. Secondly, it is a grave error to stack the opinions of a majority of Canadians against the deeply held convictions of a sizable minority who know they are the stakeholders and that it is their property, their rights and their freedoms which are at risk, while the majority are not stakeholders and apparently do not believe or have been misled to believe that they have no such thing at risk.
In a democracy, when citizens agree with the government on some issue, say the surrender of rights in exchange for some perceived benefit (notwithstanding the Faustian foibles of such a bargain), the cumulative result from many such agreements provides the basis for the social contract that exists between the governed and their servants, the governors.
But, when group of citizens "A" agree with government "B" to deprive citizens "C" of their rights, that is not the basis for social contract, but social conspiracy. And it is in this context of the actions of the government of Canada to abandon unilaterally the existing and eminently workable social contract with the firearms community, and to displace it with exactly this kind of conspiracy, that the opinions and votes of the majority lose their moral and democratic legitimacy; in particular where the issue is one of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
A Double-Edged Sword
As law-abiding citizens, we have been conditioned by tradition and culture to integrate the law. We don't pick and choose which laws to obey and which not. We obey the law, all of the law, and that includes the parts with which we may disagree. What happens though, when you realize that the law no longer protects you? What happens when you see that the law is not even intended to protect you any more? What happens when you see that the law expressly, implicitly and vindictively is turned against you and is subverted, perverted and refashioned as a weapon to threaten you, to harass you, to entrap you, to convict you, to imprison you, to seize and destroy your property and to suppress your way of life?
In these circumstances, the phenomenon of integration can cut just as easily the other way. No one should be surprised if a community oppressed by the law turns to reject the law, all of the law, including the parts with which they might otherwise have agreed. You have only to note some of the recent instances of economic subversion that have already started in this country, to see one of the many manifestations of reverse integration that will mark the future.
Where the Sword Falls
As an infamous and historical document, C-68 contains all the evidence we need of conspiracy, and provides a convincing foundation for the moral authority we need to take whatever actions may be justified to ensure the survival of our community and our way of life.
When the time comes for government to implement these provisions and to enforce them, that is moment they will learn to their everlasting regret that when law-abiding citizens see that overall the law has become more of a danger and a threat to them than any benefit it provides, it becomes surprisingly easy to step across the line.
It is time to confront squarely and forthrightly those inside and outside the firearms community who say that we must continue to abide by the law, no matter what the circumstance. The problem is that we can no more easily abide by lawlessness in government than by lawlessness amongst ourselves. Unfortunately, we are faced with circumstances that require us to live with both, on the one hand by force, the other by necessity.
It goes without saying that this situation is totally at odds with our nature. Fundamentally, that is why resistance to the government is building. And that is why resistance will continue to build until we are free of this mess and all those who created it.
Who are the perpetrators of this anti-democratic monstrosity? Who are the writers of this hate-filled law? Who will be first to ferret them out and eradicate their nest in the Ministry of Justice?
Let it be ourselves; let it be our generation. Let us take this fight from Parliament to the hidden halls of power, to leave no stone unturned, to destroy all refuge, that we might spare our children and grandchildren the fear and misery inflicted by these treacherous and unworthy public servants.
Escape from Lawlessness
For as long as the federal government clings to the arbitrary, undemocratic and lawless powers introduced by C-17 and C-68, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect the firearms community to act within the laws of Canada.
Still, as law-abiding citizens, we cannot simply reject the laws of our state without ourselves becoming lawless. This inherent contradiction is not acceptable, and reflects the totalitarian ideology of our opponents; "the end justifies the means". If we ensnare ourselves in this trap, it will sap our strength and destroy us the same way it is weakening the government.
Before we offer resistance to the federal power or reject the laws of Canada, nothing will be more important or more decisive to the outcome of this struggle than to create a law of our own, so that we can live under that law and abide by that law, so that we will not be lawless. In these circumstances, it matters not one bit whether or not our own law or code or rules are recognized or unrecognized by the lawless federal power, so long as they are a true expression of the democratic will of our community. Nor does it matter if our law takes the form of a Bill of Rights or an Act of a Province of Canada, or a Declaration of Rights endorsed by a national congress convened by the firearms community, or some other form of democratic instrument.
With our talents and resources, no one should doubt the ability of the firearms community in Canada to create and to agree to an inspired and principled set of rules that will ensure our freedom, our security and our future, and take account of the safety and security of all Canadians in a way that the federal government clearly does not understand and therefore can not deliver.
Many are pinning their hopes on the outcome of the next federal election. But what if they are wrong? What we need in order to restore the peace in our lives is a change of government, not an election. These two things are not the same, nor will they necessarily occur at the same time.
If the conventional expectations are not correct, gun owners in Canada may be facing anywhere from 3 to 8 years or more under a C-68 regime. That leaves plenty of time for the government to complete a registration drive, impose a regime of even more punitive and prohibitive restrictions, and to step up their ongoing confiscation program. How we are going to survive during these critical first years? What plan have you seen that your leaders have put in place?
The facts are, the times of troubles could begin a lot sooner and last a lot longer than anyone is willing to contemplate. Furthermore, if the firearms community proceeds to register their guns en masse, the resulting high level of compliance will send a message that gun owners accept the new law, or at least they are prepared to live with the new law, despite vociferous protestations to the contrary. That is exactly the wrong message for the public to receive. In these circumstances, what impetus would there be for any new government to repeal or to amend C-17 and C-68?
Clearly, our leadership has to focus on a plan for survival, not revenge. One that will allow the firearms community to endure for an indefinite period until the eventual day of electoral reckoning. Anyone who believes the government's lies and misrepresentations that we are guaranteed 5 years amnesty before registration is imposed, clearly has not read the text of Bill C-68, which specifically gives the government authority to proceed at anytime and as early as the day C-68 comes into law.
This government knows they have only a very few years in which to lay the foundation for a system that will break us in the future. We need a strategic plan that focuses on how we are going to survive the next few years, a strategy that will undermine and crumble the government's plan before it sets and hardens around us. Specifically, we need a plan to save our guns from a registration program that will subject us to an increasingly punitive and costly regime of firearms restrictions and eventual confiscation. And we need the leadership to do it.
The major weakness on our side, with few exceptions, is that the existing conventional organizations in the firearms community were created to fulfill roles substantially different than the one they are now forced to adopt. Major sections of C-68 are designed specifically to destroy your gun group. Is your organization ready to withstand this kind of pressure?
The process of renewal to harden your gun group to survive under C-68, has to begin with an appraisal of the kind of leadership that will be needed during this critical undertaking. In some organizations, renewal is underway. Where credit is due, credit is given. But many seem stuck at the starting gate.
If it comes to it, our way of life can survive without officially sanctioned organizations, if and when the government decides to shut them down. In the meantime, the existing shooting clubs and groups will continue to play an extremely useful role to recruit new members into the firearms fraternity. Every one of us in the wider firearms community has got to place even greater emphasis on this activity than ever before. Where these new members go after we recruit them and how they choose to protect themselves from the government once we have trained them, is their business. Our first business is to introduce them to the joys of a shooting life.
In order to preserve and sustain this valuable recruiting function, the conventional gun organizations are going to have to abide within the system. There is no way around it. They cannot escape. All of us have to recognize and understand this, and allow it to temper our thoughts and actions. Recruiting is critical to our survival. The level of recruiting that will go on outside the system from within our own community can sustain us. But to grow, we have to reach out. For as long as the conventional gun organizations are able to recruit effectively, we have to be careful not to jeopardize their existence by confusing ideology with practicality. That is the mortal mistake of our opponents, and it would do to us what it is doing to them if we let it.
On the other hand, do not think that the existing organizations can simply buckle under to the government, just to protect the recruiting function. Do not think for one minute that your gun club or gun group will be able to retain its membership, if you allow your group to fall further and further under the scrutiny and control of a system intentionally designed to undermine it. If you do not stand up to government, if your members sense only the presence and fear of government every time they go anywhere near your clubhouse, your members are going to sail away to harbours that offer them some protection.
The only way leaders will be able to prevent this is to live up to their obligation to harden themselves and to toughen their organization against the intimidating pressure that will be brought to bear. Only then will leaders feel safe enough to provide members with the guidance and the kind of information that they will need to survive and prosper under the destructive impact of C-68.
You can see the balancing act that has to be achieved.
On the one hand, the conventional organizations are useful for recruitment's sake, but cannot escape the system. In some cases, the leadership of these groups personally may have to keep one foot in the system. Unfortunately, this will expose them to intrusive government controls.
For this reason, the ability of conventional leaders of conventional organizations to speak out and take action will always be restrained or compromised. There is no way around it. The wider firearms community has got to understand this and to accept that these leaders are in a position which is difficult and unavoidable, because of the need to maintain an effective community outreach, education and recruiting program.
The other side of the coin is that people who feel compelled for one reason or another to stay in the registration system, have to understand that it is not going to be possible for them to assume the mantle of local, regional or national leadership on behalf of the wider firearms community, so long as they personally feel obliged to bind themselves to the controls of government.
And that is the single most important prerequisite for those who wish to hold on to the privilege of greater leadership in the firearms community under C-68. If somehow you are in the system and under the thumb of government, you have the option to cut the strings, or not. No one should question anyone's motive. We need good people in the system and out. However, people in the system have got to accept that in these troubled times, leadership of the wider firearms community has got go to those who are least vulnerable to government pressure and control.
If you want to be a leader in these tough times, if you expect people to put their trust in you, you have got to be aware of what it is the people want. And what they want more than anything else is to believe in a leader who can save them. But how can you save others if you cannot even save yourself? How do you expect to speak and act in the best interests of your people, if you neglect to take yourself out from under the threat of retaliation by authorities who might execute any number of actions against you at any time if you do not measure up to the standards they set for compliant behaviour? How do you propose to provide effective leadership to oppose the government, if you continue to expose yourself to the controls of government?
There is no denying it is difficult to let go of old ways and to give up some of the things you hold most dear. But the time has come to decide exactly what it is you value most. Is it your guns? Or is it your freedom? We can still be free if our leaders put aside their guns for a few years. But if we lose our freedom, all of our guns will be the first things to go, and gone forever.
As surely as you cling to the things that enslave you, they will be taken away. But if you let go, they can be saved.
Whether you dispose of your guns legally, or whether you take them out of the system by some other means doesn't much matter. Either way is the price of leadership under C-68. The example you set as a leader willing to accept personal sacrifice in order to harden the shell around your leadership, will go a long way to inspire the trust and confidence of your people.
Other Baggage
Keeping guns in your home or in your possession is not the only roadblock to effective leadership under C-68. There are a number of other strings which the government intends to jerk if you step out of line.
Firstly, if you are one of our irrepressible shooting competitors, if you are not prepared or cannot bring yourself to stay away from the established ranges or move your activities to expedient field ranges, then we all know that you are going to register your guns. Under the C-68 regime, it is going to be just too risky for anyone to show up at an established range with an unregistered firearm.
There is absolutely nothing wrong if you decide this is the best plan for you. We need to preserve and promote competitive shooting and to keep it alive as best we can. But competition shooting is just one of those things that will have to remain within the system in order for us to get the most out of it. Those involved have to accept the attendant liabilities and limitations.
Accordingly, you should not expect your personal involvement or reputation as a range hound to do much for your leadership profile outside of your own special interest group. Competitive shooters will just have to accept that they are caught up in the system. As a result, there is going to be a perception that they are compromised in their ability to represent the wider firearms community on the more contentious issues.
Through no fault of their own, gun dealers are more thoroughly trapped in the system than anyone else. They have the most to lose. If you make a mistake, you might lose a little or a lot. If a gun dealer gets caught out of line, he loses it all including his livelihood.
The contribution gun shop owners have made to the firearms community throughout this long struggle has been second to none. However, gun dealers have to recognize how extremely vulnerable they are, and the great extent to which this factor compromises their ability to represent the interests of the wider firearms community.
In the new Canada, legitimate gun dealers will be selling registered guns and only registered guns. That is a fact. So despite what some may say, gun shop owners in the end can hardly be expected to lead the firearms community in any effective action to oppose a registration regime. Unless, of course, they are already out of business or have otherwise cut the strings, in which case these veterans could be very effective indeed.
Outfitters and guides also face a similar and difficult position.
Lastly, the government has created a new and in most cases, expensive firearms training industry catering to the new federal program required by all new gun owners. This creates a situation where those involved in this industry have a vested financial interest to perpetuate the system imposed by government. Notwithstanding the beneficial aspect of firearms training which is undeniable, the people involved in this industry have to understand that they too are compromised, and cannot be expected to lead any effective resistance to a system on which they depend for their living.
Perhaps you are getting a glimmer why the efforts by our side so far have produced so few tangible results. From the beginning, too many leaders have been compromised by one thing or another from doing what is right and necessary. Perhaps they do not realize the extent to which this factor has had a negative impact on our success. But there is no denying that many indicators are indeed negative. We have leaders who speak of "privileges" instead of our rights. They make reference to "law-abiding", but fail to speak of natural law or natural justice. They talk of "hobbies" and "recreation", but neglect to mention the obligation to defend our way of life. We are fed up with this language of slaves, who speak only the words pleasing to their masters.
Now is the time for leaders to break free. Or, recognizing the limitations of their personal circumstances, to step aside in favour of others with less exposure than themselves. We need a renewed and invulnerable leadership with no FACs, no FPCs, no registered guns, and no strings attached. If you do not see it that way, then you can expect to see an increasing reluctance of your people to follow where you are going. Because we have been at this long enough for them to see that you are going nowhere.
If you are in a position of leadership in the firearms community, you have the opportunity to pause and reflect on your accomplishments, and your ability and willingness to lead. You might ask yourself, in what ways have I left myself vulnerable to government coercion? Am I truly free to speak what I perceive to be the truth? Am I limited because I can't bring myself to let go of the things government is using to influence or control my thoughts and words and actions? Am I or am I not prepared to give up the things in my life that leave me open to retaliation?
As a leader, you have choices. You can take action to better protect yourself and your home and family, and harden yourself as a leader at the same time. Remove the guns from your home and property. Dispose of your registered guns. Allow your FAC to lapse. Do not apply for a FPC. Get out of the system. All this is legal. You can do all of these things and more, in order to harden the target that you present to government, and to reduce to a minimum the ability of authorities to threaten you and stop you from providing people with the one thing they want and need the most: personal, effective, exemplary and self-sacrificing leadership.
We cannot carry on any kind of political fight if our community does not survive until the next change of government, and maybe beyond. Those who neglect to prepare, will perish. Those who say the government's plans will not succeed, are wrong. The government's plans most certainly will work - unless we make them not work. And we can make them work very badly or not at all.
Slavish adherence to the laws of a lawless government is a bankrupt philosophy that has led us near to ruin. The Canadian firearms community has now to prepare itself to commit to the total defeat and derailment of the government's registration drive. To do so, we need leaders with the wisdom and courage to protect themselves. Those leaders are there. If you are not one of them, then perhaps you should step aside with grace. No one is going to fault you for your personal circumstances.
The time to start your leadership and your gun organization on the path to preparedness, is long past due. Anyone can see that the government is accelerating its timetable. Your focus has to shift, and into high gear. We need a plan to survive the next several intervening years. There is no one who can afford any longer to talk about "some other guy" doing something. "Some other guy" is not going to do anything for anyone. Because "some other guy" can't help you unless you help yourself. Now it is up to each one of us to become that other guy. Only then can we truly help each other to make it through this terrible, long nightmare.