Russell Brand Criticizes Stephen Harper’s Speech About Ottawa Attack

An event that took place in a country that we at CE are not only based in, but also one that doesn’t typically see events like this -at least by comparison to many others. This event is also prompting the Canadian to look at creating a less free nation as well as more power to the police. “The incidents in Ottawa are being used to advance a narrative that will not only entitle them to further wars abroad, but will entitle them to inhibit our freedoms,” – Russell Brand Russell talks a lot about the narrative and agenda that both Canada and Prime Minister Stephen Harper pushed across during his speech to address the nation regarding the attack. Before we get into the detail of that, I want to share a little anecdote. I had a conversation not too long ago with someone in which we primarily spoke about the military. We mainly focused on the purpose of it and what it has been used for over the past decade. I was told that members of the military should be seen as heroes who are fighting for our freedom. Shocked by this statement I thought to myself, given the events of our world, how could anyone think this? Then I realized it is possibly an opinion gathered from watching mainstream media only. Possibly watching things like Stephen Harper’s speech which Russell addresses in the video below. I believe there could be value in watching mainstream media, but one would have to look to multiple sources of information outside of the mainstream to actually get a true story of what is taking place.

The idea behind this stems from the fact that 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations and thus you are likely hearing the narrative these six corporations are trying to push out.[1] The idea of biased media is not new as it can be seen with any news platform that contains a political bias. (Conservative, liberal, socialist etc.) The Harper government is already associating this event with ISIS yet no one knows what is going on. Even if it turns out that it’s not related to ISIS, the words will have been repeated enough in public ears that they will automatically think ISIS was involved and committed the act. Interestingly the new ISIS hype is stirring up all kinds of controversy and may not even be real threat. [5] Brand makes a very interesting point by the end of the video. He proposes that a previous shooting that took place in Moncton, New Brunswick recently didn’t get the same attention as the National War Memorial shooting because it was done by a white Canadian and not someone who could be perceived as a foreign enemy -ultimately an individual who could help to justify foreign military deployment. Even though the previous shooting took the lives of three RCMP officers versus just the single life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Not to pose value on anyone’s life more than another, but you would think both scenarios would be equally as important -no? Perhaps Russell is correct in his assumption? No matter how you cut it, the idea of a terrorist threat seems to be a very hot topic and highly pushed idea in the mainstream media. With one of the biggest events justifying the war on terror (9/11) being highly controversial and heavily avoided by both the government and media when it comes to answering questions about what really happened, it’s difficult to say whether terrorism is a serious threat, or more so one proposed by leaders and the media to justify creating wars where the West attempts to gain control over other areas of the world.[2] After all, what have the wars over the past 13 years actually done other than end the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and cost tax payers exorbitant amounts of money? Perhaps they created a sense of increased safety, but there is no evidence to support that. After all on the same day as this attack parliament quietly passed bill C-13, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation presented under the guise of cyberbullying. Even the mother of Amanda Todd who committed suicide due to cyberbullying spoke out against the bill stating “I don’t want to see our children to be victimized again by losing privacy right.” [3] Since bill C-13 contains proposals that would allow the Canadian government to spy on citizens online. Again we have an increase of police control as well due to this attack.

The Harper government wants to make terror arrests easier. “Accelerated review of police abilities is underway’ says public safety minister Steven Blaney. [4] Are we really keeping our nation more free? Or do these types of “attacks,” which could be false flags like 9/11 likely is, have a different agenda behind them? Is the Prime Minister’s speech pushing this agenda forward? Sources: 1. http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 3. http://www.globalresearch.ca/government-passes-anti-constitutional-surveillance-law-during-ottawa-shooting/5409771 4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-harper-government-wants-to-make-terror-arrests-easier-1.2811571 .

Read the full article at the original website

References:

• http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
• http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6731159
• http://www.globalresearch.ca/government-passes-anti-constitutional-surveillance-law-during-ottawa-shooting/5409771
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-harper-government-wants-to-make-terror-arrests-easier-1.2811571