Have you noticed that we’ve gone from being known as a tolerant, welcoming country to a country full of “Islamophobes,” “homophobes,” and sufferers of a growing list of phobias (irrational fears) that, according to our accusers, make us hateful and bigoted?

It wasn’t anything that we did differently that changed us into terrified, cowering, snivelling individuals from whom certain groups need protection. But protection from what — words that offend?

We’ve watched bombers blow up Christians and non-Christians, Muslims and non-Muslims, homosexuals and non-homosexuals, misogynists and non-misogynists, tourists and non-tourists, humans and non humans around the world. Too many are willing to use whatever force they choose to compel everyone to acknowledge and adopt their belief system. It’s not enough to acknowledge that we don’t all agree or to simply live as non-violent neighbours. No, unless we enthusiastically embrace the ideas and practices of those with whom we disagree, we are considered intolerant.

This is where our Supreme Court has gone astray. In granting rights to groups, rather than protecting the rights of individuals, they have led us into the strange world of competing rights. Consider: one person commits a crime against another person. It can be judged on evidence under the Criminal Code of Canada. One person is convicted or not convicted. Their family is not convicted unless they are involved. Their townsfolk are not convicted, unless they are involved. Canadians as a whole are not convicted unless they are involved. One person does the crime and does the prison time.

“Group rights” is a whole different kettle of fish. One person commits a crime and the whole community must be prepared to do penance … except some groups.

Have Canadian politicians called on the entire Muslim population to apologize for the crimes of a few? No, nor should they, but if group-blame and group rights were applied without bias in Canada, that would be the result.

The bullying left, rather than acknowledging that we have a problem with hate in our world, thinks we should grovel to anyone who chooses to be offended. Well, not anyone who has been offended just the “chosen ones.” If they disagree with our words, we have offended them and must do penance.

But the truth is that I have been offended. Why does nobody apologize to me? I’ve been offended by those who fight against our country with more than just words! But our grovelling Prime Minister flagellated all Canadians for our lack of compassion when he handed over a cool $10.5 million dollars in penance to Omar Khadr who fought against Canada and its allies in Afghanistan! On top of that, I’ve been offended by the CBC treating this convicted killer like he’s a hero.

I’ve been offended by being castigated because I believe there is something wrong with forcing “beloved” wives and daughters to hide their femininity under a shapeless black bag. In Canada, as in much of the Western world, women know that if the Liberals get their way, we too will eventually be forced to wear the niqab, the hijab and the burka to avoid offending the proponents of Shariah Law.

Make no mistake about it: there are Canadian politicians who want to see Shariah implemented in Canada, first within Muslim communities but, ultimately, as the law of the land. This is incompatible with the Charter’s intent but all-too-possible under its muddled application.

The ideological wedge that makes this possible is guilt by association. One person commits a hate crime and the whole non-Islamic population is deemed to have been guilty of a hate crime. This is wrong, unfair, and produces neither justice nor security.

Let’s start by seeing where we agree: We agree that the killing of Muslims by non-Muslims in New Zealand was a horrible crime. The killing of Christians by Muslims in Sri Lanka was a horrible crime. The killing of tourists by Muslims in Sri Lanka was a horrible crime. The killing of people in Toronto by a misogynist was a horrible crime. The killings of wives and daughters by their husbands and fathers are horrible crimes.

What do these horrific tragedies have in common? They were perpetrated by individuals — some working together, some alone — targeting groups. The labelling of the groups is very interesting; after the horrific attacks on churches in Sri Lanka, the victims were called “Easter Worshippers” rather than “Christians.” But, there was hesitancy to label the attackers by their religion.

We are moving away from speaking the truth plainly and, at the same, we are moving away from freedom for individuals:

We are facing the muzzling of our freedom of speech; Motion 103 has begun this process.

We are being bullied because we hold some of the same viewpoints as some individuals who have committed crimes…we are deemed guilty by association.

We are facing the belittling of our religion and that is affecting our freedom of belief.

We are facing limits on where we can go, such as bubble zones around abortion clinics, abortion providers, and abortifacient providers.

In short, we are facing the erosion of our freedoms, and it is happening at a rapid pace!

Group rights will never provide equality. Group rights are the harbinger of inequality and we can see the results of that every day.

Our sympathies go out to the Christians and tourists in Sri Lanka who faced the brutal acts of numerous individuals. We are equally shocked by the shootings in the New Zealand mosque and this weekend’s assault in a California synagogue. Terror is never justified.

CHP Canada faces Election 2019 with individual Canadians nationwide who are concerned about our diminished freedoms. It’s time to stop being so focused on offences and more concerned about protecting our rights and equal treatment under the law!

Join CHP Canada today. Let’s protect what we have!