By John Jalsevac

TMÂPowerful Propaganda Institute Being Planned
TMÂMuseum a $300 million Shrine to Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms
TMÂCharter of Rights “boring”, “philosophically vague”, “fraught with loopholes”
TMÂTrudeau’s “dictatorship of relativism”
TMÂThe Charter and “Canada’s Judicial Captivity”
TMÂCanada’s one-world priests leading the world into the ideological abyss – quietly
TMÂConclusion – The Temple of Propaganda
TMÂRelated Articles

See Acrobat version (with Bookmarks) at

Powerful Propaganda Institute Being Planned

Right at the heart of Canada a host of the most influential, wealthy and socially liberal Canadians and world leaders are planning to construct the most powerful propaganda institute the country has yet seen. A giant glass blaze of light constructed at the crux where the Red and Assiniboine rivers meet, with deliberate architectural ties to mother earth and native Indian earth spirituality, the Museum For Human Rights will eventually serve as the temple of Canada’s new state ideology. It will be a ‘sacred’ spot where Canadians can come together and learn to worship Canada’s most destructive political document, the deceptively named ‘Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Winnipeg Human Rights MuseumThis secular temple will be a place for Canadian schoolchildren to be taught to marvel at their country’s ‘achievements’ in advancing what are questionably, if not outrageously, called ‘Human Rights’ since the implementation of the 1982 Charter. Mingling with legitimate exhibits about the internment of the Japanese in WWII and other true human rights violations justly mourned, will be exhibits championing reproductive ‘rights’, sexual ‘rights’, same-sex ‘rights’.

The Winnipeg museum will be the Sunday School of the left, where police, military and political personnel will be taught the new double-speak of ideologically defined and dangerously limited “human rights”, and be trained in the most effective means of discovering, discouraging and punishing ‘bigots’ and ‘extremists’. And it will be a place for the more ambitious to consider the next logical step of introducing these ‘rights’ to the rest of the world, of evangelizing the globe in the light of the Charter’s new world religion of humanistic ideology.

But, there is something deliciously right about architect Antoine Predock’s winning design for the museum. A huge, shapeless construct of glass in the tradition of the Crystal Palace, to be erected in Winnipeg, the building is designed, according to the architect himself, to be an “apparition” resembling a cloud, “light filled and buoyant”. When all is said and done the delightful final impression is a building designed to look as vaporous and vacuous as the false religion and the empty idol which it will have been created to celebrate.

Museum For Human Rights a $300 million Shrine to Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

With a price tag quickly approaching $300 million dollars, the museum—apparently, and thankfully, to be the only of its kind in the world—is the brainchild of the late Israel ‘Izzy’ Asper, the famed media mogul and owner of the National Post. It’s obvious from the get-go that the building is little more than a $300 million dollar shrine where liberals can adore Pierre Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The announcement of the museum coincided with the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter.

Unsurprisingly the federal government has already pledged to the project a hefty $100 million of the money it takes from taxpayers. So far, besides the $100 million from the federal government, $20 million has also been pledged by each the city of Winnipeg and the province, another $40 million from private sources, and $20 million from the Asper family.

The monies, however, weren’t as easily come by as that. In early July 2004 the Liberal government nearly torpedoed the project by briefly reneging on what the Asper Foundation insisted was an agreed $100 million pledge. Curiously enough this sudden change of heart came almost immediately after the National Post, owned by ‘Izzy’ Asper, gave a boost to the Liberal’s competition before the late June election by printing an editorial supporting Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. No reason for the sudden withdrawal of the funds was given by the Liberals. The hissy fit over with, Paul Martin is now leaping on the once-in-a-lifetime chance to place Canada on a high pedestal on the international stage as a world leader in so-called “human rights”.

Repeated remarks by those involved in the costly venture have indicated that all the exhibits of the Museum will be seen through the lens of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau himself will most certainly be one of the museum’s most celebrated personalities. This is hardly surprising as Trudeau’s disciples are powerful, influential, and passionate; but it doesn’t bode well.

Canada seen through the lens of the Charter isÂa mere skeleton of a formerly strong, free and solidly grounded nation, stripped of its flesh and its life.

Charter of Rights “boring”, “philosophically vague”, “fraught with loopholes”

Typical of the delusional liberal attitude towards the Charter, in a 2003 interview shortly before his death, ‘Izzy’ Apser went so far as to compare it to the American Declaration of Independence.

This is laughable at best. The Declaration of Independence is one of history’s most eloquent, articulate, and philosophically sound political documents. It begins with an invocation of God and then appeals to the inalienable human rights which flow necessarily from His eternal and unchanging laws. Beneath its list of claims and demands the Declaration rationally and systematically lays a foundation of bedrock, objective truth, the spirit of which lends credence to its every subsequent word.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, is boring and philosophically and legally vague, fraught with juicy loopholes, ripe for exploitation by one who knows how.

God’s name is mentioned, but was only added by the Charter’s architects as an afterthought. Nothing contained in the Charter flows from the invocation of the Ineffable. Rather, His name is placed at the head the document more as a kind of rubber stamp of approval than as an invocation rising from an understanding of God as the well from which all truth springs. And the stamp itself is only little more than a forgery, not the real thing at all.

Trudeau’s “dictatorship of relativism”

One way of coming to a true understanding of the Charter, and through it the purpose and meaning of the so-called Museum For Human Rights, is to understand the man behind the Charter, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Beloved by Canadians for his remarkably un-Canadian gusto and charm and his politically untypical intellectualism, his most lasting legacy has been a confusing and contradictory personal credo of professed Christian faith and practiced moral relativism. By applying this credo to politics he personally pushed Canada over the edge into a ‘long and lovely suicide’ dive into the abyss of social liberalism. Much the same as Canada’s current Prime Minister, Trudeau was a self-professed “devout Catholic”, who hailed the country’s most infamous abortionist, Dr. Morgentaler, as “a good friend, a fine humanitarian and a true humanist.” An admirer of China’s mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung, and Cuba’s Fidel Castro (he was once heard to remark that things would be so much easier done “the Cuban way”) Trudeau branded onto the Canadian consciousness the paradoxical aphorism of “the separation of Church and State”.

Besides being philosophically untenable, Trudeau’s phrase is paradoxical because Trudeau, more than any Canadian PM, shoved his personal convictions, including the Charter of Rights, down the gagging throat of his country. Western Canadian columnist Link Byfield, wrote in a September 2000 Globe and Mail article that “Parliament annoyed [Trudeau], so he bulldozed his Charter of Rights into the Constitution (1982) and surrendered statutory supremacy to the court.”

Trudeau did not, as he would have one believe, personally espouse the separation of Church and state. But neither was he, as he claimed, genuinely Catholic. Rather, he was one of the earliest Canadian members of the new religious, humanistic ideology which informs and interprets the Charter of Rights, and which is currently gaining considerable force in the United Nation’s in the form of a one world order. And though the ancestor of this ideology of relativism breathed its first breath centuries ago, born of the Godless womb of the French revolution, in many ways Trudeau is the modern father of its most evolved descendent.

Pope Benedict recently warned against this religion in a homily saying, “A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which leaves only the ‘I’ and its whims as the ultimate measure.” Trudeau may have rejected fundamental Judeo-Christian principles, and the God of Abraham, but he certainly had his own idols which he worshipped and forced Canadians to worship along with him—the idol of his beloved Charter, the idol of libertarianism, of political correctness, of social liberalism.

The Charter and “Canada’s Judicial Captivity”

In the last twenty-two years since its inception the Charter has lead to the worst abuses of judicial authority in Canadian history.

Ian Hunter, in an article entitled “Canada’s Judicial Captivity”, printed in 1997 in First Things, explains. With the advent of the Charter, he says, “Canada ceased to be a country of parliamentary supremacy and became…a country of constitutional supremacy, where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is ‘the supreme law the land’.” However, “the problem with constitutional supremacy is that constitutions are not self-interpreting.”

There, as Hamlet would say, is the rub.

The Charter is an amalgamation of various rights which in the very act of being placed in writing are stripped of their breath and soul and instead exist in a permanent and antagonistic tension with one another. That is, none of the rights in the charter are absolute, and all are left completely open to the interpretation of a small number of un-elected judges who enjoy years of unaccountability with extended periods of tenure. In the midst of a conflict Canadians are now reduced to yelling out “I have a right!”, and then sitting back to observe which right will come out on top this time around.

Hunter quotes an unnamed Ontario judge commenting on the frightening political consequences of the non auto-interpretative nature of the Charter: “Elected representatives of the people create constitutions, leaving it to un-elected judges…to decide what exactly they have created.” What they have created is a monster, which in true horror-film fashion has run amuck to disastrous consequences. In the past two decades, Canada, under the lazy, conveniently distracted eye of the Charter, has thrown off the common cloak of parliamentarian democracy and assumed the official gown of the judiciary.

“The Canadian voter still goes to the polls quadrennially” says Hunter, “but is it is judges who have imposed abortion on demand (R v. Morgentaler), who came within a single vote in the Supreme Court of creating a Charter right to physician-assisted suicide (R. v. Rodrigues), and who are systematically eradicating any normative distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality (M. v. H.). Canada now has same-sex ‘marriage’ especially thanks to several activist judicial decisions based on the Charter, despite the fact that the Charter’s framers specifically rejected including ‘sexual orientation’ in it. However, this didn’t stop Paul Martin, just before the June 28 vote that passed Bill C-38, from stating, about the marriage redefinition bill, “this is about the Charter” and “a right is a right and that is what this vote is all about tonight”.

Not only have the Charter and its authors introduced a powerful dictatorship of relativism, but so too have they imposed the added scourge of the dictatorship of the judiciary. Better yet, the relationship can be explained thus: the dictatorship of relativism is the religion, the Charter its idol, and the judges and certain politicians the priests who sacrifice truth on the triple altars of ‘tolerance’, ‘freedom without responsibility’ and ‘political correctness’.

All that the members of this new religion of ideology need now is a place to gather and worship – a temple. And they are determined to build themselves one—Canada’s Museum For Human Rights.

Canada’s one-world priests leading the world into the ideological abyss – quietly

‘Izzy’ Asper, when expounding on his dream for the Museum For Human Rights lamented “We Canadians have a tendency to aim for the middle, not the top, not for the stars.”

But this statement isn’t true. Although Canadians on the whole seem to be increasingly unimpassioned, certain wealthy and powerful Canadians, the high-priests of the new-world religion, have stepped into influential roles and are leading the world in a most unobtrusive, deceptive—and effective—manner. For years they have been carefully guiding the fate of the world using their favorite vehicle—the United Nations.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the activist judges who have used it as a platform to ‘discover’ or create never before imagined ‘rights’, are merely the Canadian branch in this experimental new world-wide movement, which with the quiet unobtrusiveness of a creeping vine consumes and crushes the walls of tradition and the rock foundation of Judeo-Christian principles on which Canada, and so many other nations, were built.

Few realize that Canada is one of the most influential forces at the UN, pushing hard and skillfully for a one-world order dominated by leftist liberal ideologies. Canada has done considerable work in paving the way for global eco-extremism, ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ (read: homosexual ‘marriage’, abortion, forced sterilization, contraception). Ask any of those who’ve lobbied in the UN on the behalf of family and life issues who it is they often spend the most of their time fighting – Canada.

And few, if any, have been more influential in pushing the one-world, ideological agenda than Canada’s own Maurice Strong. Strong, coincidentally enough, is one of the members of the advisory board for the Museum For Human Rights.

Maurice Strong is a notoriously soft spoken, deceptively Canadian businessman. He has served as senior adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as well as the president of the World Bank, and has more awards and honorary degrees to his name than it is worth the time to recount; most have been for his extensive work in environmentalism. A mere handful of his many, many powerful connections include communications magnate Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, and current prime minister Paul Martin, and he is especially tied into the powerful web of influence of Canadian businessman Paul Desmarais. But that’s a story for a different article. A few of Strong’s many nicknames include the ‘godfather of globalism’, and ‘custodian of the planet’. In 1990 the Globe and Mail, with unusual insight, reported that on his 160,000 acre Colorado ranch he is “laying the groundwork for what amounts to a new world order.”

That 160,000 acre ranch once called by Strong’s wife the “Valley of the Refuge of World Truths” (now renamed “The Place of the Heart”) is a gargantuan new-age colony. It is a haven of religious and moral relativism. It brings together representatives of the world’s ‘traditional’ religions in the hope of fusing them together and creating a new world religion which is heralded by a return to the pagan earth spirituality of native Indians. Indeed, it isn’t at all surprising that a huge portion of the Museum For Human Rights will celebrate the supposed original innocence of the natives and lament their supposed subsequent corruption and destruction by white, male Europeans. The odds are minimal that it will mention the horrors of the frequent tribal warfare and violent practices which often appear throughout native history.

As Oscar Wilde would say to a friend at the height of his dissolution: “While we wait for a new religion of light, let Olympus serve as a shelter and refuge. We must let our instincts laugh and frolic in the sun like a troop of laughing children.” Paganism is in vogue.

Maurice Strong is only one such member of the list of advisers and donors, albeit one of the most noteworthy. The list reads like a who’s who of liberal ideologues—extreme feminists and environmentalists and homosexual-rights activists. It includes such groups as Egale Canada, Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). They are the priests and the priestesses that are quietly leading the world into the abyss of new age, one world, relativistic paganism.

Conclusion – The Temple of Propaganda

So far, it is unlikely that there will be much public criticism of the $300 million Human Rights Museum. Even Conservatives with the insight to see through the farce probably and sadly won’t have the courage to point out the emperor’s nakedness; instead they will gush enthusiastically about the mad project.

The left has long waged a war of words, a war of propaganda, and they have won almost every battle. They have usurped and made a monster of the word ‘tolerance’, they have raped the word ‘gay’, and they have beheaded the term ‘human rights’. To speak out against the museum is to risk being labeled ‘intolerant’, to risk finding your face in the Museum’s planned Hall of Shame which documents past violations of human rights. There you will annually be mocked and jeered at by hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren as a ‘bigot’ and an ‘extremist’.

To speak out against the museum might be to risk being in the shoes of Bishop Henry of Calgary who faces an expensive and exacting trial in the hands of a Human Rights Commission for simply laying out the teachings of the Catholic faith on homosexuality. To speak out is to risk being prosecuted and persecuted, like Chris Kempling, the British Columbia teacher whose teaching license was suspended for writing letters to the editor in defense of marriage. And then there is Scott Brockie, the Christian printer who refused to print letterhead for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives whose battle with the Human Rights Commission left him doubled under the weight of a $5,000 fine and $40,000 in legal costs. The list goes on. The human rights of these persecuted Canadians of principle are anathema in the new temple.

Will there be a section devoted to China’s notorious forced one child policy, and its violent forced aborting of women and infanticides, of which so many of those on the board of the museum are supportive of?

Don’t count on it.

What are the chances that violations against human rights committed by Human Rights Commissions will be granted an exhibit in the Museum?

None at all.

The completion of the Museum For Human Rights will be the coup de grâce, the last button on the sash of liberal propaganda. After all, how did the Liberal federal government finally justify committing $100 million to building the museum? According to Martin Knelman of the National post, the realization that they could use the museum as a “training centre where police officers, military personnel and government employees will be sent for courses and seminars designed to make them more knowledgeable and sensitive to issues of cultural diversity, racial bigotry and the human rights of Canadian citizens under the Charter of Rights.”

God save us from the hands of these ideologically brainwashed individuals who are meant to protect us.

With the completion of the Museum Canada will finally have the means to create a bureaucracy passionately dedicated, and a police and military force fully equipped, to defend the new state ideology. The full coercive power of the state will stand vigilantly against detractors against the new order. And with such passionate and powerful protectors, who would dare speak out against it? Who would dare risk a place in the Museum For Human Right’s Hall of Shame?

I can think of a few who would. And they had better speak up now – about the museum, about the Charter, judicial activism, institutional corruption and so much more that is genuinely threatening to usurp our freedom.

Nothing about the Museum project is yet final. It is still thankfully almost $100 million short of its goal. And the museum website states that construction will not begin until full funding is put in place. Perhaps full funding will never be found. Perhaps Canadians will start vociferously objecting to this obscene waste of multi-millions.

Let us make it clear to our government and our fellow countrymen that the Museum for Human Rights is, at best, little more than a dangerous throwaway of $300 million.

Related Articles

Cotler Revealingly Praises “Constitutional Revolution” Caused by the Canadian Charter of Rights

The New Game of Charter Politics: Homosexual Marriage ‘Right’ is Judge-Made Affair

The Real Pierre Trudeau: Father of Canada’s Permissive Society

Quebec Chief Justice Admits Courts Re-Creating Canadian Social and Moral Values

The Activist Judges Behind the Ontario Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Ruling

More On Elitist, One-Worlder Maurice Strong From Lorne Gunter

Internationalist Maurice Strong Promises Free Advice for Upcoming Prime Minister

Gorbachev Calls for “New World Order”

Paul Desmarais’ Web of Influence Over Canada

The UN Quietly Wages War on Religion


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.