In Canada, self-defense has now been implicitly declared sexist by the incumbent liberals at Parliament Hill. While Canada’s extremely tight gun control laws are well-known, the extent to which self-defense is disrespected and stigmatized in this country is remarkably overlooked.

Recently, Canadian Liberal Patty Hajdu, Trudeau crony and anointed “Minister of Status of Women,” defended the current laws. She insisted that legalizing the use of mace and pepper spray as self-defense was “offensive” as it put “the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence.”

That’s when I lowered the newspaper and asked myself out loud: wait, it’s illegal here to carry pepper spray? Unbeknownst to me, Canada’s Criminal Code (the same code that, via Bill C-16, may eventually enforce the use of illegible, fictitious non-binary gender pronouns) states, under the Firearms Act of 1995, that it is prohibited and illegal to carry pepper spray or “any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person”.

Canada's self-defense laws are not only unbalanced, they protect the would-be criminals more than our law-abiding citizens.

Canada’s self-defense laws are not only unbalanced, they protect the would-be criminals more than our law-abiding citizens.

Not a person intent on injuring, immobilizing, or otherwise incapacitating you, of course. Not a person intent on raping your mother, sister, or girlfriend. Not a person intent on mugging you after they sock you in the teeth (at best). Not them, the law prohibits.

Inadvertently, this law empowers the criminals, because… they’re criminals and will break the law, anyway. The law puts otherwise law-abiding men and women at risk of breaking the law, and criminally liable for defending themselves with a non-lethal means from a potentially lethal attack.

“Common sense” gun laws are not necessarily sensible

To add some tragic irony to this, the Firearms Act of 1995 was passed by Jean Chrétien’s liberals in response to the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre of 14 women by an embittered, Elliot Rodger-styled misogynist. The act aimed to forestall future mass shootings, even though these tragedies or individual shootings in general have since not been reduced.

In addition to this irony, of all the firearms prohibited in this act, the Mini-14 hunting rifle used by the Polytechnique madman to shoot 28 people (and kill 14 women) is classified as a “non-restricted firearm,” meaning it can be legally owned for private use like hunting and can be stored and transported with only a license and not a permit. You can buy a Mini-14 used at a local gun shop—if you can find one.

Thus, Canada’s “common sense” gun laws state that citizens eligible to bear arms can (as liberally as the law permits) purchase, store, and transport a type of rifle that was used to commit a heinous crime, but cannot legally buy and use “mace” or “pepper spray” to thwart one. Needless to say, Canada’s self-defense laws are laden with unjust double standards and a highly broad and confused logical framework.

While I understand regulating the sale, use and ownership of firearms, Canada is a good example of how “common sense” gun control can trickle down to basic self-defense laws and render them nonsensical. It can also lead to incomprehensible and plainly unjust applications of the law that, ultimately, empower the nefarious actions of would-be criminals.

There is one glimmer of hope…

Cue Kellie Leitch, Conservative Party of Canada leadership hopeful. Recently, she proposed revising the Criminal Code so that it legalized the use of mace and pepper spray for self-defense. Leitch impartially made this a matter for all Canadians; she did, however, angle her motion towards the issue of sexual and physical violence against women (even though there are many forms of violent crime that affect both genders varyingly).

Conservative Kellie Leitch wants Canada to become a nation with core values.

Conservative Kellie Leitch wants Canada to become a nation with core values.

Leitch stated: “Clarifying the laws around the use of mace and pepper spray for self-defense will give women a greater measure of protection against would-be attackers.” Sensible enough (this is Canada, so you have to expect at least a little bit of feminist pandering, even from the right side of the aisle).

And granted, I do not picture men using mace for self-defense in the first place (though we should have every right to do so). When accosted, us fellas tend to be very direct and confrontational; our method of self-defense is typically measured so that it is proportionate to the threat. A moderate threat may be met with a little Taekwondo (or your choice of martial art) and a severe one with a more extreme, possibly lethal force—like a firearm (insert: Canadian frantically patting empty waistband).

If you do not have time or cannot afford martial arts training, you can legally buy “dog and coyote attack deterrent” or “bear repellent” at Canadian Tire or a local army surplus store. I bought my girlfriend one in case she’s walking home and needs to deter a “coyote.”

Pepper spray is called "coyote and dog deterrent" in Canadian stores. This week, my girlfriend got hers.

“Pepper spray” is packaged as “Dog & Coyote Attack Deterrent” in Canadian stores. Logical how it’s “Made & Printed in U.S.A.” but not registered for use there.

Once again, it’s not really about equality

Following that illogic, pepper spray is sexist to women, but dog deterrent is not animal cruelty to dogs. Whether a man or woman is attacked by a human perp or an animal, the intent—the will to physically inflict harm—is the same. If anything, animals attack humans inadvertently out of self-defense (believing a human wants to attack their owner or younglings), whereas human criminals know full well what they are doing. Why should the law allow defense against a confused animal but disallow defense against a thug with pre-meditated motives?

Hajdu deflects from these gaping holes in the current legislation by suggesting “we [Trudeau’s Liberals] are developing a federal gender-based violence strategy in consultation with provinces, territories and grassroots organizations to ensure that women in Canada can live free from violence.” (bold added) Basically, Hajdu hijacks Leitch’s gender-equal position and skews it to gender-specific, proving the Prime Minister and his Liberals are not really about equal treatment of the sexes.

The insane implication of Hajdu’s above rebuttal is this: no, Ms. Leitch, self-defense is exclusively a woman’s issue. But we don’t need self-defense anyway; let loving government intervene and defend the right of half the country’s population (women)–the right not to protect themselves, of course, but to be victims–with legislation aimed at punishing the lesser, brutish half (men) who wish to harm them.

Feeling the equality?

Officially cucked, like many men in this country.

Officially cucked, like many men in this country.

And when Bedlam could not get any fuller, the National Post (a typically reliable mainstream Canadian conservative news source) stumbled in to finally fill the institution’s capacity. “Perhaps I am a little more feminist than she is,” wrote the male author regarding Hajdu’s comments. “I would be comfortable making the carrying of mace and pepper spray a sex-linked legal privilege. Hell, I would consider extending it to very small firearms.” That quote epitomizes the high level of inverted and cuckolded intellectualism in this country, especially of Millennial men.

The bottom line: this is cuckoldry.

Canada is a nation of capitulation (our reputation for saying “sorry” exists for a reason), led now by a trust fund baby who celebrates Fidel Castro, states The Current Year, and believes “there is no core identity, no mainstream” here. We apologize when narcissistic malcontents temporarily shut down a public parade; we apologize and compensate by drafting anti-scientific, anti-free speech legislation to appease a minuscule minority of sexually confused crybabies; we apologize after accidentally elbowing manhandling someone who deliberately blocked our path. We apologize for wearing a hat that supports our politically incorrect views.

What about basic self-defense laws? Can we get that right? No. We publicly push biased agendas that implicitly place half the country’s population into a basket of deplorables.

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-7-04-38-pm

Kellie Leitch and Donald Trump: while there is certainly no physical resemblance, both political figures put nationalism and sovereignty first.

Fortunately, conservatives like Leitch speak truth to power and demonstrate a level of impartiality to their social policy prescriptions liberals seem incapable of doing. The United States has saved its socio-economic future by electing an anti-globalist businessman. I stood by on November 8th, rooting northward for my fellow nationalists southward. I implore you, dear reader, to do the same for us. Leitch has already been called “Canada’s Trump”—she believes in self-defense and nationalism.

Canada’s next election is in 2019. Abandon your egos, friends, and tweet to the stars: “Kellie Leitch 2019 – #TheRealImWithHer”. Share articles. Send out a signal. If the aforementioned insanity of Canada’s Liberals over self-defense does not inspire you, I simply do not know what will. America has chosen to go its own way. So has Italy. So could France and Germany. Allow Canada to follow.

When the time comes, Make Canada Great Again, too. Let’s start with a little pepper spray.

Footnote: On Tuesday, Toronto mayor John Tory (the same “conservative” mayor who declared “Roosh not welcome in Toronto”) called on the federal government to further tighten the nation’s gun laws—which will add even more restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ ability to protect themselves. Whether you’re Canadian or not, sign this petition here to stop Tory’s proposal.

Read More: Women Refuse To Protect Themselves From Sexual Assaults