Remembrance Day 2017


The Canadian Forces and the Canadian Vets are being treated the same way as our aboriginal people – very badly.


So let’s go back a bit – not far though.   Canada got involved in Afghanistan because it was a UN operation, based on a false fag maybe but none the less a UN sanctioned event. We lost 158 men and goodness knows how many came home wounded both mentally and physically and that struggle is still going on so what we achieved may have been excellent at the time but is all lost now as the Taliban have regained control of their country.

 Regretfully we got a new Prime Minister in 2006 who hated everything that was human including Canadians and was VERY upset as the leader of the Opposition when we did not go into George Bush’s personal war in Ira

 As men and women eventually came back from the manufactured Afghanistan debacle showing signs of extreme stress they expected to get some help from the Canadian people through their government…not going to happen either then or now which prompted this:

When members of the Canadian Forces put on the uniform of their country they make an extraordinary personal commitment to place the welfare of others ahead of their personal interests, to serve Canada before self and to put themselves at risk, as required, in the interests of the nation. A veteran, whether regular or reserve, active or retired, is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank cheque made payable to “the Government of Canada,” for an amount of “up to and including their life.”  

 Veteran’s group Equitas’ statement of claim against the government.


A class action was brought in the Supreme Court of BC, and this shows very clearly what our then PM stated on numerous occasions;   I have “bolded” the same relevant statements below from these proceedings;

 January 31st 2014



Canada’s Covenant to Service Members and Veterans

  1. With respect to paragraphs 227 and 228, the defendant admits the accuracy of the quoted statements but pleads that these statements were political speeches not intended as commitments or solemn commitments. ( Apparently, politicians can say what they want to get elected and it has no real meaning at all)
  2. As to paragraph 229, the defendant admits the content of the legislation referred to but denies that this reiterates or recognises any alleged social contract or social covenant with the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs.
  3. As to paragraph 233, the defendant admits that items (a) to (e) are accurate quotes from the report entitled “Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces” but denies that they are an articulation of any alleged social contract with the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs.
  4. As to paragraph 235, the defendant admits the accuracy of the quote but denies the allegation that ultimate responsibility belongs to Parliament and to public opinion not just to the government of the day

 From this, it is clear that the then PM and his Conservative Party did not believe that the Government of Canada owed anything to those who had put themselves in harm’s way at their behest, regardless of whether or not that action was really justified. The fact still remains that those women and men came home altered and in need of help.   That help was not forthcoming and thus the lawsuit.

So, you say to yourself, things are different now with a liberal PM aren’t they?   Wrong.   The lawsuit was put on hold during the election of 2015, and of course promises were made about how the veterans would be treated differently, but as shown above in #60, political speeches are not to be taken as anything other than empty promises, and sunny days and sunny ways do not apply to the Canadian people generally but especially to those veterans whose lives were and are forever changed.

And so from the CBC concerning the resumption of that case in the BC Supreme Court:

 “Ottawa’s legal maneuver on veterans benefits called ‘a betrayal’

Lawyer for injured Afghan veterans says court action turns ‘Liberal election campaign into a lie’

By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: May 17, 2016 5:02 PM ET

“Moreover, all parties voted unanimously in favour of a motion introduced by NDP MP Fin Donnelly last May, (2016) which recognized a “stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people … and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or died as a result of military service.”

So just why are the Liberals pursuing this case?   What is it about the Canadian people that they will allow their governments to abandon those they sent to fight supposedly to protect our mythical democracy and nonexistent sovereignty?

 Why is it that our puppet MPs all wore poppies and spoke in glowing terms in our House of Commons of the bravery of the Canadian forces? Why are they, for the most part, silent about this court case? How can the members of the dysfunctional government look themselves in the mirror knowing that they are challenging those vets in court? Just as important why are we allowing this to happen? Could it be that we are not heard by those MPs? That their proud yet empty words are simply a sham? Regretfully the answer to those last two questions is yes.

 As usual, I will sit beside the flagpole at Beacon Hill Park and listen to the guns firing their salute, and remember those I knew who gave that ultimate sacrifice in WW2 and the various skirmishes since then all at the behest of the international bankers and financiers who made money off those skirmishes, as I refuse to join the legions of people at various cenotaphs listening to the religious words about the current “war on terror” as if it was real, and beseaching some god or another to protect our brave men and women.

 We are better than that, or we should be.


Jeremy Arney