Speechless.

As a researcher/clinician who handles patient records and human data, I’m extremely concerned about the implications of bill C-22 for professional physicians, psychologists, health researchers and anyone else who maintains sensitive electronic records, as well as their patients. If encrypted record keeping platforms are compromised professionals will need to return to tedious and time consuming paper-and-pencil charting to maintain the ethical standards for record keeping in our professions. We will also be unable to use internet-delivered methods to provide care to underserved rural and remote communities. This would be a substantial burden for professionals in a healthcare system already under strain, and a major blow for vulnerable patients who rely on telehealth.

Check out the work of Dr. Julian Somers! A clinical psychologist and addictions expert who presented a major report promoting evidence based addiction policy, informed by 20 years of research. It was opposed to the NDPs harm reduction model and he was forced to delete 20 years of data. A recovery-based model offering treatment housing has shown the best outcomes. Specifically, housing must require clean and sober living and be integrated within the greater community so people in recovery can live alongside others living productive prosocial lives and rise to the occasion to do the same. People with addiction are currently housed in close proximity often in a single building (eg SROs in east Van), where they are free to use drugs. Anyone trying to recover in these settings doesn’t even stand a chance. Also some harm reduction resources can be helpful (like opioid agonist treatments to help withdrawal) BUT this has to be paired with services where the goal is recovery. The harm reduction ideology is so far gone that even suggesting people in addiction would be better off living lives without drugs is regarded as “stigmatizing”, recovery isn’t even an objective of harm reduction. So people are just given more drugs and basically handed the shovel to dig their own graves. It’s so sad. somerspsych.com

Because apparently noticing and documenting the violence is the problem, not the violence itself.

A prime example of the left abandoning vulnerable women: In Canada, we hear a lot about missing and murdered indigenous women. Key details recently making the rounds are that most murders occur intra-communally—81% of murdered indigenous women are killed by someone they know and in 86% of these cases the assailant was indigenous. Here’s where it gets interesting. When indigenous offenders stand trial Canada requires courts to consider colonial background factors (eg past hardship), termed Gladue Factors, and consider any possible alternative to imprisonment resulting in lenient sentences. Meaning that indigenous murderers are prematurely released back into their communities to recidivate…leading to more murdered indigenous women. These two ideological objectives—helping vulnerable women and being merciful to offenders—are totally at odds. Everyone, ESPECIALLY women most vulnerable to violent crime, would be better off if we got rid of two tiered justice and sentences were determined objectively. The left are like a snake moronically eating its own tail.

A profound realization catalyzed my rejection of left wing ideology as a young woman studying at a liberal Canadian institution—the stark reality that the left didn’t have my back. I expressed dismay about the commercial sex industry, human trafficking, and the impact of mass migration on women and children and was told doing so was anti-woman and Islamophobic, and in fact supporting these things was morally superior and intellectually complex. The left invalidates and minimizes women’s lived experiences and trauma. In doing so they engage in mass scale re-traumatization, exacerbating our pain.