Meanwhile, in the UK they're talking about a new 'Bill of Rights' that redefines human rights. A number of areas are already coming in for criticism by religious and ethnic groups, but the changes to look out for are the small ones they're trying to distract you from.
I find it odd how countries like Australia and Canada do things very blatantly, like very harsh lockdowns that last for months, internment camps and now Canada invoking "State of emergency" laws while in the UK it's all smoke and mirrors and much more passive-aggressive.
Here the government's approach has been a lot more cautious, they claim to be ending all restrictions and defending our rights, while subtly attempting to alter human rights laws to make things like forced internment and forced vaccination de facto legal and hope that no one notices.
The difference is striking considering that Australia and Canada are also Anglo-Saxon derived cultures. I guess the reason is their governments consider Australians and Canadians to be more compliant and conformist than the British are and thus are able to impose the agenda in a more direct and overt manner?
I get the impression that Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc, are more inclined to see their governments as a benevolent and familiar entity that is their friend essentially, while the British are more inclined to see the government as something distant and aloof and not necessarily benevolent or their friend?
Last edited: