Connect with us

Brownstone Institute

Splitting The Difference: Is Partition The Endgame In Canada, U.S.?


9 minute read

[Sign up today for Not The Public Broadcaster newsletters. Hot takes and cool slants on sports and current affairs. Have the latest columns delivered to your mail box. Tell your friends to join, too. Always provocative, always independent.

The bumper sticker in Utah is brutally succinct. It shows the donkey image of the Democratic Party with the words, “If you’re going to vote like an ass go back to California.”

You can probably find a similar sentiment, if not bumper sticker, in places like PEI, rural Ontario, Florida, North Carolina, Montana or Texas. The urban elites are fleeing to them from the choked swamp of liberal big cities. They’re looking for lower taxes, lower real estate prices and lower crime rates. But they want to bring their Woke politics with them.

If there’s been one accomplishment of the Biden presidency it has been closing the Woke information loop. Nothing gets into the Progressive Castle to disturb the inhabitants. They listen, but they don’t hear. And their new neighbours want none of it. They don’t want people infected with imported Woke politics infecting their systems.

The latest flash-point example in both nations was the recent SCOTUS decision repealing the sacred liberal signpost of Roe v. Wade. In effect, the justices made no decision on abortion restrictions. They instead stated it was not a matter for the federal government to decide. It should be decided by voters, not judged, in the 50 U.S. states individually.

The Left in both countries predictably went ballistic, claiming SCOTUS overreach. Without reading the decision they insisted that women were again relegated to backrooms and coat hangars. Celebrities and Democrats placeholders made their usual noises to the Media Party about scrapping the Supreme Court or the Constitution if they can’t keep unlimited abortion. Justin Trudeau promised abortion mills for American women seeking to end pregnancies.

What they conveniently hide is that polls in the U.S. show that 37 percent would ban abortion entirely with only rape and incest exceptions, 49 percent support an abortion ban after 6 weeks and 72 percent  support abortion ban after 15 weeks. In short the media/ Hollywood consensus— where people like Whoopi Goldberg boast of having seven abortions—  represent just 28 percent of those polled. Not that these numbers will ever make it to MSNBC or CBC.

Along with guns, climate change, energy policy, information privacy and higher taxes, the Roe v. Wade fight illustrates the schism that has grown in postmodern society. Where finding compromise and accepting free speech were the bedrock of democratic societies in the U.S. and Canada, today finds warring camps unable and unwilling to agree on any major policy initiatives besides printing more money.

The Supreme Court and the political process are now used to punish opponents. The result? “America is more divided culturally and politically than at any time since the 1850’s.  Real and authentic dialogue does not occur, and violence and the threat of violence increase daily.  We are on a precarious path with potentially dangerous outcomes.”

Canada is undergoing a similar catharsis, driven by the ideological Justin Trudeau whose fealty to The Great Reset outstrips his interest in gas prices or runaway inflation at home. His attack on privacy and rights— aided by a compliant media— is epitomized by the current persecution of Tamara Lich, the Freedom Convoy coordinator. As a result, weary Canadians are dispersing across the nation to find cities or provinces agreeable to their politics.

The question is, have we reached a point at which citizens, disaffected by their  states and provinces, begin moving en masse to entities that suit their politics?  Already California is haemorhaging people and companies, with 119,000 citizens leaving the Golden State’s tax rolls in 2021 for places like Utah, Idaho, Texas or Tennessee. The state’s population has now shrunk to 2016 levels, despite the huge flow of illegal migrants into its midst.

In Canada, Toronto’s outward exodus is shielded by the huge influx of immigrants to the GTA. But the real-estate price spikes in smaller communities across the country speaks to the massive outflow of money and talent from the gridlocked city and its unrepentant Boomer values.

With no appetite for compromise from the current governments and their massive bureaucracies could we see something like the exit of the United Empire Loyalists after the American Revolutionary War in the 1780s? Those loyal to the Crown emigrated to pre-Confederation Canada to continue to enjoy the protection of the King. Those supporting the new and untested United States gravitated to the fledgling nation.

In that spirit will we see liberals and progressives who believe in unlimited abortion, gender fluidity, gun seizures, high taxes and draconian climate policies hive in “blue” states while those with contrary opinions gravitate to “red” states such as Texas, Florida, Tennessee or Utah?  The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 would further exacerbate the tensions— and threats— about schism.

In Canada, where provinces have fewer powers than U.S. states in deciding their own policies, could we see a similar schism as the West tries to chart a course different from that of Ontario, Quebec and B.C.’s lower mainland?  And if those rejecting the progressive emerging Washington to Ottawa are forcibly made to kneel, surrender guns and acquiesce to state control in their everyday lives could we see violence?

Is it possible that, instead of a relatively peaceful departure of the Loyalists post Revolutionary War, we instead get the partition nightmare experienced by India in 1947. With the British Crown withdrawing from the sub-continent leaving a Hindu India and a new Muslim Pakistan, millions migrated to tribal protections. In the process millions were slaughtered in sectarian fighting.

Today, both possessing atomic weapons, the nations glare menacingly at each other, punctuated by border skirmishes. They remain more isolated than before from the former countryman under the Raj.  Driven by idealogues, North America is perched precariously on such a philosophical partition. One that could easily become a physical partition. The Great Compromise of 2022 is waiting by the door, waiting to make its entrance. It will not be a grand entrance.


Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster ( The best-selling author was nominated for the BBN Business Book award of 2020 for Personal Account with Tony Comper. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s also a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book with his son Evan Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History is now available on

BRUCE DOWBIGGIN Award-winning Author and Broadcaster Bruce Dowbiggin's career is unmatched in Canada for its diversity and breadth of experience . He is currently the editor and publisher of Not The Public Broadcaster website and is also a contributor to SiriusXM Canada Talks. His new book Cap In Hand was released in the fall of 2018. Bruce's career has included successful stints in television, radio and print. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada's top television sports broadcaster for his work with CBC-TV, Mr. Dowbiggin is also the best-selling author of "Money Players" (finalist for the 2004 National Business Book Award) and two new books-- Ice Storm: The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Vancouver Canucks Team Ever for Greystone Press and Grant Fuhr: Portrait of a Champion for Random House. His ground-breaking investigations into the life and times of Alan Eagleson led to his selection as the winner of the Gemini for Canada's top sportscaster in 1993 and again in 1996. This work earned him the reputation as one of Canada's top investigative journalists in any field. He was a featured columnist for the Calgary Herald (1998-2009) and the Globe & Mail (2009-2013) where his incisive style and wit on sports media and business won him many readers.

Follow Author

More from this author

Brownstone Institute

Requiem for Jacinda Ardern’s Political Life

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute


New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has resigned after months of rumors. Ardern, whose popularity has plummeted during the last six months, told us “she had nothing left in the tank.” In her resignation speech, she called on Labour Party ministers to consider which reform areas should be priorities and which should be scrapped as Labour moves to try to wipe some controversial policies off its plate.

The backstory to this resignation is a tale of woe. Ardern said today she wants to be remembered as someone who tried to be kind. The subtext is: the country is in an unprecedented mess but don’t blame me. School attendance is running at just 67 percent on any given day. Machete-wielding teenagers are ram-raiding liquor stores daily in an unparalleled crime wave. The health system is overwhelmed. Ardern’s government promised to build 100,000 new homes over three years. It has delivered just 1,500.

Our tourist, farming, and hospitality industries have never recovered from lockdowns and border closures. It now takes months to get a visa to visit NZ and the government says it only wants rich people to come. No wonder, we are all poor now. Ardern famously insisted on universal Covid vaccination mandates. There is a suspicion that our 90 percent vaccination rate has left everyone in a lethargic fog. Excess all-cause deaths are still running 15 percent above the long-term trends, and it is not because of Covid.

History will judge Ardern harshly, but don’t blame her alone. This was a Parliament who woke up on all sides of the house to the weakness of our constitutional arrangements (there are none). The Bill of Rights was tossed aside and no one in Parliament cared.

The leader of the National opposition, Chris Luxon, famously said pre-pandemic if he was in power, he would withdraw benefits from unvaccinated single mothers. David Seymour, leader of the ACT party, said those losing their jobs through vaccine mandates only had themselves to blame. Labour’s coalition partner, the Greens led by example, encouraging mothers in labour to ride to hospital on a bicycle (yes they did).

Revelations this week, hat Ardern personally overruled her scientific advisors who were expressing doubts about the safety of Covid vaccines for young people and the wisdom of mandates, have circulated very widely and no doubt this further undermined confidence in the government.

Political insider and right-wing commentator Cameron Slater published an article 10 days ago saying that out of all the politicians he has known (and he has known most since Muldoon in the 1970s) Ardern is the only one he rates as truly evil.

Ardern introduced rule by regulation. Adopting the enabling model favoured by fascists in the 1930s, her government has empowered authorities to tell us all what to do, when to stay at home, and where not to go. The courts, the Human Rights Commission, and the broadcast regulators have all followed the government line meticulously, which had a devastating effect on business, families, communities, and professions. To cement her policies, Ardern introduced massive government funding of our media and broadcasters.

Ardern was a protege of Tony Blair and Klaus Schwab of the WEF. They must bear some blame too. What fantasies of global power did they offer to a young person who was given to idealistic dreaming that segued into fanaticism?

Ardern’s government, in an absurd overreach, also funded a nationwide effort to discredit critics of policy, labeling them terrorists. This has divided a formerly egalitarian society, instituting a Stasi-like snitch culture that encourages us to dob in a neighbour. Government Disinformation Project employees appeared on funded films aired on television labeling knitting, blond hair, braids, vaccine hesitancy, love of natural foods, Yoga, and yes, motherhood as signs of terrorism that should be reported to the intelligence services.

Why did Ardern suddenly change overnight in August 2021 from being a kindly figure saying she would never mandate vaccines, to being one of the world’s most draconian proponents? We can only speculate. NZ is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence network. Given the Pentagon’s recently revealed massive involvement in US Covid policy and gain of function research funding, was she fed information that a bioweapon was in play? We will likely never know.

For a couple of weeks now government announcements and advertisements encouraging vaccination and boosters have been conspicuously absent. Has the penny finally dropped? We doubt it. It will take an honest, intelligent politician (are there any?) to roll back Ardern’s dictatorial powers and kickstart New Zealand. Why would any aspiring newbie give up that much power? The prospect will be too intoxicating.

Our final verdict: It is not Ardern but the whole NZ Parliament elected in 2020 that will be judged as the worst in our short history as an independent island nation, formerly famous for championing the underdog and offering opportunity to all. Ardern’s resignation is a bonfire of modern democracy.


  • Guy Hatchard

    Guy Hatchard PhD is the author of a popular covid science information site in New Zealand with a large following. He also runs the campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation (https://GLOBE.GLOBAL). He was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing safety and certification organisation (now known as FoodChain ID). He has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet (available from Amazon and the Dr Hatchard has advised governments on natural food legislation and the risks of GM Foods. He lives in New Zealand.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

The WHO: Our New Overlords

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute


According to its website, the World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, “works worldwide to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable.” In recent times, however, the organization has become a vehicle for corruptiondeceit, and Chinese propaganda.

The WHO is an incredibly powerful organization with 194 member states. When the WHO speaks, the world listens. When the WHO decides on a plan of action, the world changes.

As the piece demonstrates, the WHO has aspirations of becoming even more powerful than it already is. If successful, the consequences could prove to be severe.

Last year, Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, wrote a stinging piece that took direct aim at the WHO’s “bungled response to the coronavirus.” Miller, like so many others around the world, was particularly disillusioned about the “misplaced trust” placed in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As many readers no doubt recall, the CCP did its very best to conceal the COVID-19 outbreak that originated in Wuhan.

Because of the WHO’s numerous failures, Miller argued persuasively that the United States, whose “funding of UN activities exceeds that of every other country,” should refrain from financing the organization unless an “effective oversight and auditing entity” can be created to oversee operations.

In 2020, shortly after suspending financial support, the Trump administration began initiating a process to withdraw the United States from membership in the WHO. However, upon taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden quickly reversed that decision and restored funding practices.

A few weeks after Miller’s well-argued piece, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced a bill designed to prevent the WHO from unilaterally imposing public health restrictions on the United States and violating the country’s national sovereignty. The legislation came after the decision-making body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly, met to discuss a “pandemic treaty.” If introduced, such a treaty would give the WHO far greater control over public health decisions in the United States.

Scott said: “The WHO’s radical ‘pandemic treaty’ is a dangerous globalist overreach. The United States of America must never give more power to the WHO.” He added that the bill would “ensure that public health matters in the country remain in the hands of Americans,” and it needed to be passed immediately. It wasn’t. It should have been.

From Jan. 9–13, clandestine meetings took place in Geneva, Switzerland. Those in attendance discussed the possibility of amending the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR). For the uninitiated, the regulations are considered an instrument of international law, a legally binding agreement of basically every country in the world (except Liechtenstein) that calls on members to detect, evaluate, report, and respond to public health emergencies in a coordinated manner.

Michael Nevradakis, a senior reporter for The Defender, warned that if the proposed IHR amendments are made, then WHO members would essentially be stripped of their sovereignty. As Nevradakis previously reported, the IHR framework already allows Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO director-general, “to declare a public health emergency in any country, without the consent of that country’s government.” The proposed amendments would give even more power to the director-general.

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told Nevradakis that the proposed changes could violate international law.

Boyle, a legitimate expert who played a pivotal role in drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, believes we are heading toward “a worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state,” which the WHO directly controls. That’s because the IHR regulations “are specifically designed to circumvent national, state and local government authorities when it comes to pandemics, the treatment for pandemics and also including in there, vaccines.”

It’s clear to Boyle that the WHO is preparing to adopt the regulations in May of 2023, just a few months from now.

The brilliant researcher James Roguski also shares Boyle’s concerns. He claims that the WHO is attempting a global power grab by morphing from an advisory organization into what can only be described as a global law-enforcement agency. If introduced, the IHR changes, he suggested, “would institute global digital health certificates, dramatically increase the billions of dollars available to the WHO and enable nations to implement the regulations WITHOUT respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.”

Although COVID-19 is now a distant memory for many, another pandemic, we’re told, is just around the corner. When it comes, the WHO may very well be in a position to order you, dear reader, to do exactly what it wants, when it wants. If these amendments are made in May, resistance may prove to be utterly futile.

Reposted from Epoch Times



  • John Mac Ghlionn

    With a doctorate in psychosocial studies, John Mac Ghlionn works as both a researcher and essayist. His writing has been published by the likes of Newsweek, NY Post, and The American Conservative. He can be found on Twitter: @ghlionn, and on Gettr: @John_Mac_G

Continue Reading