Letter to the editor responding to David Wilks letter

In response to Mr. David Wilks’ letter to the editor, "National security and freedom."

It is hard to fully express the frustration that I feel reading this puerile piece of falsely divisive garbage without resorting to inappropriate language. To put it succinctly: this government p*sses on the grave on my grandfather and the graves of every Canadian who fought against true tyranny over the course of our history.

It’s hilarious really – there is so much wrong with this letter that it is literally impossible to cover it all in a response of similar length. But we’ll try.

If the act seeks to protect against “jihadi” terrorists specifically, why is the act written with such broad language that peaceful protesters of ANY stripe could potentially be termed terrorists?

What definition of “freedom” includes the caveat that “freedom” is only possible through a complete lack of privacy?

How is it possible that an overarching government agency that can only function by obtaining specific exceptions to allow it to violate individual freedoms and rights will better be able to protect those freedoms if they no longer have to ask permission to violate them?

How will giving government entities more “tools” with less oversight ensure that “gaps in sharing information” disappear given that these tools have NOTHING to do with more effectively sharing information and everything to do with giving the agencies more raw data that they can then fail to share as they do with the information they already have?

Thank whoever you like that politicians don’t enforce the law, because they’d just write it on the spot to serve their own ends.

Jihadi terrorists cannot take away our freedoms. Such a notion is patently absurd to anyone with two brain cells left to rub together. We ourselves however – Canadian citizens, voters – can, and are, giving it away at the drop of a hat.


Glenn Finlay

Sparwood, B.C.