Bill C-238: Increase To Sentences For Gun Possession Obtained During Crime (Defeated)

This was meant to be covered a while back, but was missed. A Private Member’s Bill, C-238, was defeated. It would have increased the mandatory minimum sentences for guns obtained during the commission of an offence.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Fabianist Approach On Gun Rights

Order In Council 2020-0298, Banning 1,500 Gun Types
Bill C-71: Backdoor Long Gun Registry
Bill C-21: Red Flag Law To Seize Guns In Canada
Bill C-22: Reducing Penalties For Gun Crimes

3. Guns Obtained In Crime, Gun Trafficking

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
.
96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized
.
103 (1) Every person commits an offence who imports or exports
(a) a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition, or
(b) any component or part designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into an automatic firearm,
.
knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament.
.
Punishment — other cases
.
(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Both Section 96 (weapons obtained in commission of a crime) and Section 103 (illegal import/export), would have been changed so that the mandatory minimum of 1 year in prison would be replaced by:

(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.

This was a relatively modest change to the Criminal Code of Canada. It was voted down, largely because of the Liberals. Credit where credit is due: this was a tiny, but worthwhile Bill.

Bill C-22: Scrapping Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences For Certain Gun Crimes

The other day, Bill C-21 was introduced, which would bring “red-flag” laws into Canada, and make it easier to seize guns. Now, we have Bill C-22, which reduces the penalties in the Criminal Code for crimes committed with guns. Keep in mind, last May we had an Order In Council which immediately banned some 1,500 guns.

Who gets targeted? Legal gun owners.
Who gets a break? Criminals who use guns.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. JT Cut Penalties For Terrorists/Pedos

In 2018, Bill C-75 was addressed. It cut the penalties for terrorism offences. The media didn’t seem to cover that it also lowered the penalties for child sex offences as well. Tt has also been proposed to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status for sexual partners. Now, we get to Bill C-22, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for people committing crimes with guns.

3. Section 85: Firearm Use Offences

85 (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,
.
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.

Marginal note: Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
.
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
(c) [Repealed, 2008, c. 6, s. 3]

Bill C-22 would change 85(3) to this:
“Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

No more mandatory minimum prison sentences for the above offences. While a Judge would “likely” still impose one, it’s not required if this Bill passes as is.

4. Section 92: Unauthorized Possession

Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
.
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Marginal note: Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

Bill C-22 would change 92(3) to this:
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
No more minimum sentences.

5. Section 95: More Illegal Possession

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
.
95 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 95(2)(a) to this:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
Once again, mandatory minimum sentences would disappear.

6. Section 96: Firearms Used In Crime

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
.
96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 96(2)(a) to:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
No more mandatory minimum jail sentences.

7. Section 99: Trafficking Guns/Weapons

Weapons trafficking
.
99 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or
(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
.
a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

Marginal note:Punishment — firearm
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) when the object in question is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years
.

Marginal note: Punishment — other cases
.
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Bill C-22 would change 99(3) to this:
“In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”

Section 100(3), weapons trafficking, would also be changed such that the required minimum jail sentence would be removed. The Court could still issue them though, but would have discretion.

8. Section 244: Discharging A Firearm W/Intent

Discharging firearm with intent
.
244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Subsequent offences
.
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
(a) an offence under this section;
(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244.2; or
(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1, 344 or 346 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.
.
However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

If passed, 244(2)(b) and 244(3)(b) will now each read:
“in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

Section 344(1)(a.1) and 346(1)(1.a) are also repealed, which would have called for 4 year minimum sentences in some robbery cases and extortion where firearms were not used.

It’s not enough that legal gun owners can be targeted under proposed red flag laws, or that their guns can be outlawed. Now, the Government sees fit to reduce the penalties for those committing crimes with guns.

This isn’t stupidity or ignorance.
It’s war against the Canadian public.

Ottawa Using “Pandemic Bucks” To Help Companies Grow And Advertise Their Products

We have already covered media outlets in Canada being heavily subsidized by the Canadian Government — which of course, means the public. It explains the total lack of independent media.

Moving on, it seems that the NRC is heavily involved in propping up other companies, and helping them advertise. This happens even as mandated shutdowns have flattened other companies. Should we be picking winners and losers here?

1. Important Disclaimer With This Piece

It doesn’t appear that the bulk of the grants are directed to help companies push the “pandemic” narrative. That being said, it’s fair to assume that these businesses will be “mindful” of where their money is coming from. So, it’s unlikely that they will be critical of it in any meaningful way. The following comes from an online search of Government handouts on advertising, with some obviously irrelevant ones omitted.

It’s also interesting that the National Research Council of Canada is financing the majority of them. More on that later.

2. Buying Off Entire Canadian Media

Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
Aberdeen Publishin (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting

3. Grants To Companies For R&D, Advertising

COMPANY DATE AMOUNT
2047752 Alberta Inc. Apr. 20, 2020 $53,362
10319287 CANADA INC Aug. 17, 2020 $21,000
Abacus Growth Industry Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $38,250
Akuspike Products Inc. Sep. 21, 2020 $33,750
Apollo Music Store Inc Jul. 7, 2020 $30,750
Baro Apparel Inc. Aug. 1, 2020 $50,100
Bonton and Company Jun. 1, 2020 $96,370
Caldera Distilling May 5, 2020 $33,750
Cambridge Elevating Inc. Aug. 12, 2020 $33,000
Caméléon Média inc. Dec. 23, 2020 $258,903
Casca Designs Inc. Jul. 14, 2020 $22,500
Créations Today is Art Day inc. Oct. 19, 2020 $18,750
CVAC Efficace Inc. May 19, 2020 $19,050
Dirt Squirrel Co. Jul. 10, 2020 $41,250
EatSleepRIDE Mobile Inc. May 11, 2020 $46,000
EQ Advertising Group Ltd. May 1, 2020 $150,000
Fab-Cut Systems Inc Jun. 16, 2020 $30,750
FOM Inc. Sep. 25, 2020 $27,750
Forestry Innovation Investment May 9, 2020 $258,500
Glacier Communications Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $30,000
Gogglesoc Apparel Limited Nov. 18, 2020 $26,250
Harbinger SCR Inc. May 30, 2020 $45,000
Hunch Manifest Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $47,787
Hydrodig Ltd Jun. 9, 2020 $30,000
Indigo Marketing Solutions Ltd. Aug. 4, 2020 $35,000
Jeffrey Ross Jewellery Ltd Oct. 22, 2020 $22,500
Kicking Horse Coffee Co. Jul. 22, 2020 $34,050
Koffee Beauty Inc. May 15, 2020 $34,200
Les Entreprises PNH inc. Nov. 17, 2020 $275,511
M32 Média inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $98,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $80,000
Netgen Corp. Apr. 29, 2020 $26,250
O’Grady Productions Inc. Sep. 16, 2020 $37,500
Pacey Medtech Ltd. Oct. 17, 2020 $26,250
PageFreezer Software Inc. May 3, 2020 $52,500
Park & Fifth Clothing Co. LTD Oct. 20, 2020 $30,000
Probuild Software Inc. Aug. 28, 2020 $18,000
Riaz Sidi Performance Marketing Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $45,000
Rock Solid Productions Inc Sep. 29, 2020 $24,750
Roomview Technologies May 8, 2020 $60,000
Rosgol-Rostech Technologies Inc. Oct. 17, 2020 $24,000
S&Y Househ Advertising Services Inc Nov. 18, 2020 $34,319
Satya Organics Inc Aug. 24, 2020 $30,000
Solutions Nubik Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $27,000
StackAdapt Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $2,468,000
Telecom Engineering Inc Jul. 27, 2020 $21,760
Temple Lifestyle Inc. Jun. 25, 2020 $44,775
Theos Inc. May 9, 2020 $43,950
Trellis Corporation May 4, 2020 $17,000
V. Island Men’s Trauma Counselling Jun. 25, 2020 $177,005
Vertical City Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $250,000
WATTPAD CORP. Jun. 24, 2020 $54,000
Wholly Veggie Inc. Jun. 15, 2020 $37,500
Wizard Games Inc. Jul. 10, 2020 $15,000

This isn’t all of them, but does give a glance into where the Federal Government is spending your money. Or rather, where it’s spending debt for future generations.

4. Why Is National Research Council Funding It?

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) is Canada’s largest federal research and development organization.
.
The NRC partners with Canadian industry to take research impacts from the lab to the marketplace, where people can experience the benefits. This market-driven focus delivers innovation faster, enhances people’s lives and addresses some of the world’s most pressing problems. We are responsive, creative and uniquely placed to partner with Canadian industry, to invest in strategic R&D programming that will address critical issues for our future.

Each year our scientists, engineers and business experts work closely with thousands of Canadian firms, helping them bring new technologies to market. We have the people, expertise, services, licensing opportunities, national facilities and global networks to support Canadian businesses.

In this section, you will find more information about how the NRC is organized and governed, where we are located across Canada, and links to our corporate publications and financial statements.

The majority, (though not all), of these came from NRC.

The NRC’s mandate is to “promote scientific or industrial research”. In short, it’s a public-private partnership to bring to products onto the market. Even as Federal and Provincial Governments crash economies across Canada, public money is used to make new companies competitive. This isn’t simply about money handed out to prop up desperate enterprises. In the meantime, thousands of businesses have gone under, because of the “arbitrary” rules that have been imposed.

The Great Reset is here, and Governments everywhere have their thumbs on the scales.

Gamil Gharbi’s Crimes Okay To Gaslight Gun Owners, Men — But Don’t Use His Name

Apparently, using the birth name of a mass murder is wrong. But using his crimes to push agendas against men, and legal gun owners gets downplayed.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Quotes From The Article

This also now occurs when the Montréal Massacre is discussed. Mainstream media frequently avoid naming Marc Lépine, the legal gun owner who used his Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle to kill 14 women in 1989.

Some opponents of gun control, however, still name the shooter. But they often employ Lépine’s birth name: Gamil Gharbi. In doing so, these members of the firearms community seek to “other” the gunman — to distinguish him from other gun owners, and to intimate that he was not a “real” Canadian firearms owner.

Invoking his birth name raises the spectre of stereotypes associated with “foreigners,” especially Muslims — themselves the victims of a mass shooting in Québec four years ago this month.

For anyone who has followed this at all, the massacre by Lépine/Gharbi “has” been used for political agendas. Specifically, it has been used to push gun control measures, mandatory minimum jail sentences for gun crimes, and to narrative of women being the victims of male violence.

The author makes no mention whatsoever of the gun control legislation being advanced as a result of Gharbi’s crimes. There is also just passing mention of the anti-male narrative that has resulted.

Instead, the outrage seems limited to one point: that Marc Lépine’s birth name, Ghamil Gharbi is frequently used. That name is (supposedly) used to point out his Muslim heritage.

Lépine was born in Montréal. His mother was a French-Canadian nurse; his father was an Algerian businessman. Lépine’s parents split up when he was a child, and his mother returned to work to support the family. At 14, his name was legally changed and he took on his mother’s pre-marital surname.

Groups representing firearm owners frequently seek to define gun violence as mostly a problem of criminal gangs. They argue that the licensed firearms community is responsible for few of the illicit drug-related shootings that grab headlines in Canadian newspapers.

That’s true, though those same groups are reluctant to discuss other kinds of gun violence, including domestic homicide and suicides, which often involve legal firearm owners.

The fact that the Montréal Massacre shooter had acquired a licence to purchase his rifle (then called a Firearms Acquisition Certificate) is problematic for the gun community.

The author admits that one of the main defenses is true: that legal gun owners are not responsible for bulk of the gang and drug related deaths which are rampant in cities like Toronto.

No mention of the bulk of the guns used being illegally obtained, and many smuggled in from the United States.

Law-abiding gun owners are rightfully upset when the horrific crimes of a few people are used as justification to crack down on their rights.

How is it a problem? Yes, he did have a license at a time. And to get it, a person would have to undergo a police background check. And a license can be suspended or revoked for many reasons. By contrast, people who want to commit serious crimes with a gun won’t be deterred by an illegal firearm possession.

The solution therefore for some Canadian firearms owners is to distinguish Lépine from other gun users by referring to him as Gamil Gharbi.

Politicians and gun control advocates try to lump them in with people like Gharbi, and get new laws passed. So, distinguishing themselves is important. They differentiate from Gharbi by pointing out that the vast majority of them are not committing crimes.

As a side note: why would using his name be bad? After all, aren’t all cultures and religions equally valid when it comes to respecting the rights of women?

As historian Karen Dubinsky correctly noted in 2009:
.
“Right-wing Canadian males seem eager to name Lépine as Gharbi, because to them this means he was a product of North African, not North American, culture … this proves the foreignness of Lépine/Gharbi’s misogyny and tells us everything we need to know about Algerians, Muslims and the rightness of the War on Terror.”

Gun control advocates love to tie Gharbi to the community that owns and uses guns — LEGALLY — but feign outrage when the community pushes back. No decent person wants anything to do with him, or his violent ways.

It’s interesting to bring up the War on Terror. In reality, this is a series of wars America will fight in order to obtain regional hegemony for another country. PNAC, (the Project for a New American Century), is something Neocons support, but actual right wing Canadians and Americans don’t.

Some gun owners have been particularly keen to refer to Lépine as Gharbi.
.
For example, an organization called Justice for Gun Owners wrote in 2017 that “radical feminists like to portray Gamil Gharbi as a typical Canadian male, but this is very far from the truth.” He was, rather, “the son of an Algerian wife beater.

In 2018, the National Firearms Association published a letter in its official journal that connected several mass shootings to immigrants or people of colour.

The writer admitted that he might be “stepping onto a slippery slope,” but said he could not understand why the media still used the name Lépine when “in point of fact, his actual name is Gamil Gharbi and he was born the son of a reportedly abusive Muslim immigrant from Algeria.” He asked how the home life of Lépine differed “from the average law-abiding Canadian gun owner?”

Since the Canadian Government is hesitant to release statistics on race and crime, let’s use F.B.I. Crime Statistics. In 2019, there was one group, which makes up about 13% of the population, but consisted 51.2% of all murders, 52.7% of all robberies, and 41.8% of weapons related arrests. These numbers are pretty consistent year after year.

Does it mean all people from a certain group are bad? Of course not, but just disparities cannot be ignored.

Gharbi is used as an example to shame and humiliate men, or legal gun owners, and it’s no problem. But mention his Algerian ancestry, and suddenly it’s a big deal.

Blaming immigrants or people of colour for gun violence is not new in Canada. Historically, Canadians have often ascribed a tendency towards violence to people of some races or ethnic origin.

Today, however, invoking the birth name of the Montréal Massacre shooter is an attempt by some gun owners to avoid taking any responsibility for violence in Canada, and to instead distract by pointing fingers at immigrants and people of colour.

It’s part of an effort to say that law-abiding gun owners (or LAGOs, as some call themselves) are never the problem.

There’s just one problem with this argument. Lépine was a licensed gun owner. That troubling historical fact should not be forgotten.

Nice strawman. It’s disingenuous to claim that licensed gun owners say they are never the problem. Some have committed serious crimes. However, people who who do follow the law do not want to be involved with those who do.

No one is blaming all immigrants or all people of colour for all violence. Individual people should be held responsible for the actions they are engage in.

That being said, certain groups do commit very disproportionate levels of violent crime. Taking a look at Toronto’s most wanted, does that look like it’s old-stock Canadians committing them?

It’s entirely possible that the author has little knowledge about the politics that Gharbi helped advance (intentionally or not). However, the tone and content comes across as condescending, and as gaslighting.

3. Selective Outrage Over Gharbi Shooting

The content of this article reflects almost perfectly how partial and selective people can be over this. Either he is completely unaware, or just makes an argument in bad faith. There’s no discussion that this mass murder helped advance the gun control agenda. Not a word about the harsher prison sentences that were made law because of this. It’s briefly mentioned — but not condemned — that feminist groups use this event to criticize men in general.

But don’t use his birth name: Gamil Gharbi.
Don’t mention his Algerian heritage.
Don’t refer to him as a Muslim.

Canada Adopts Plan To Deport Mask-Holes And Karens To Newfoundland (Satire)

After widespread rumours and delays, Canada is finally going ahead with plans to ship all the crazy people to Newfoundland. The new camps will be run by arbitrary rules science and proven methods.

Officials reminded the public that these are not internment camps. Despite the fences, armed guards, and constant surveillance, people should not tell others that engage in conspiracy theories.

While this was expected to be a huge logistical challenge, the problem has largely sorted itself out. Most insisted on taking the mRNA vaccine ahead of time, and many have since died. In related news, Theresa Tam has reassured Canadians that they are possibly completely safe to take.

For those who made it to Newfoundland, they will be subjected to mandatory “voluntary” anal swabs daily. However, the more traditional form of nasal rape will still be available for those who want it.

Yes, people will be locked in their homes for 23 hours a day, but this isn’t martial law. It’s considered “sheltering in place”, and will be used to cut down on virus spread.

Residents will be expected to wear plastic bags over their heads when outside. Public Health Officials had promoted the quadruple mask, when they found not enough people were getting bacterial pneumonia. However, after recent suffocation deaths, it is believed that 2 masks are 5 masks masks are insufficient, hence the change to plastic bags.

Contact tracing will take place as well, and is required strongly encouraged. New arrivals are asked to trace their entire family lineage, going back 10 generations, to see who may be infected.

Microchipping will also be readily available. The new types are shaped like farm animals, to make them more appealing to children.

Marriages and church services are prohibited, as they are safety risks. However, abortions, divorces, prostitution, drug use and other degeneracy be will be permitted. Bonnie Henry stated that while there is no science behind it, it is a clear and rational approach.

There will also be constant media coverage available. CBC, CTV, Global News, and the litany of Government funded newspapers will be free to all. For more “diverse” views, there will be Brian Lilley, Anthony Furey, and Lorrie Goldstein to whine about vaccines not arriving fast enough. Open discussion is discouraged permitted of course.

Inmates at the new penal colony, Residents of these new homes will get to have their voices heard on important matters. They can vote on what colour the social distancing stickers should be, and what kind of ringtones their new tracker bugs will emit.

A followup: There have been no developments in a Toronto lawsuit filed 3 years ago to stop mandatory vaccines and masks. Lawyers for the Plaintiffs assure us that a Defense is expected to be filed any day. However, more donations are needed to keep the case going.

TSCE #13(E): Gates, Trudeau Using Other People’s Money To Finance Genocide Globally

It’s bad enough that successive Governments waste the public’s money. It’s far worse when used to finance the genocide of babies, both domestically and abroad. Instead of being direct about this, it’s cloaked in misleading labels like “reproductive health”. Here are some specific cases.

Bill Gates believes there are too many people on the planet. It’s also the case that aborted fetal tissue, (from dead babies), is also used in manufacturing vaccines. If only there was a common solution to all of these problems.

See this article for more background information.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Gates Funds Planned Parenthood Groups

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
April 1998 PP Federation Of America $115,000
April 1998 PP of Western Washington $500,000
June 1998 PP Federation Of America $2,600,000
August 1998 International PP Federation $1,730,000
November 1998 International PP Federation $1,492,400
August 1999 PP Canada $569,000
April 1999 PP Federation Of America $5,000,000
August 1999 International PP Worldwide $2,845,268
November 1999 International PP Federation $1,492,400
June 2000 PP of Central Washington $75,000
October 2000 PP Federation of America $3,000,000
January 2001 International PP Worldwide $8,865,000
November 2002 International PP Worldwide $800,000
December 2002 International PP worldwide $800,000
September 2005 PP of Western Washington $1,000,000
November 2005 International PP Europe $3,024,011
June 2006 International PP Worldwide $10,000
December 2006 PP Of Western Wshington $200,000
July 2007 International PP Europe $7,023,160
July 2007 International PP Worldwide $14,990,698
September 2008 International PP Europe $23,000
November 2010 International PP Europe $7,298,377
October 2011 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2013 International PP Europe $6,973,371
November 2014 International PP Europe $431,947
August 2016 International PP Europe $11,021,872
July 2018 International PP Worldwide $490,000
September 2018 International PP Worldwide $99,000
October 2018 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2018 Shanghai Institute of PP Research $1,628,290
July 2019 International PP Worldwide $500,000
October 2019 International PP Europe $599,221
March 2020 International PP Worldwide $500,000

These dates and amounts are available directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. They’ve been at this for over 20 years now. And in case someone thinks that this doesn’t financially cost Canadians, we pay for groups like GAVI.

3. Canadian Taxpayers Funding Abortion Abroad

DATE ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
Oct. 1, 2014 MCPHAIL, Deborah $230,130
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Jul. 1, 2015 Loutfy, Mona R $1,586,064
Dec. 15, 2015 UN Population Fund $54,200,000
Jan. 20, 2016 Plan International Canada $59,406,343
Feb. 8, 2016 ADRA – Adventist $25,820,973
Mar. 8, 2016 World Vision Canada $46,185,312
Mar. 10, 2016 L’Oeuvre Léger $8,975,663
Mar. 15, 2016 Primate’s World Relief $19,683,960
Mar. 17, 2016 CARE Canada $22,217,442
Mar. 10, 2017 Ministry of Finance (Tanzania) $87,300,000
Mar. 30, 2017 University of Saskatchewan $16,986,886
May 1, 2017 Carew, Jenna N. $17,500
Jan. 29, 2018 CCISD $8,799,485
Feb. 26, 2018 CCISD-CHUM $20,850,786
Feb. 28, 2018 Pathfinder International $18,500,000
Mar. 2, 2018 UN Population Fund $25,000,000
Mar. 23, 2018 UN Population Fund $21,354,000
May 7, 2018 Action Against Hunger – Spain $2,000,000
Aug. 9, 2018 Oxfam Canada $17,959,000
Oct. 22, 2018 The George Small Project Foundation Inc $19,912
Mar. 1, 2019 Money, Deborah M $24,906
May 3, 2019 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 4, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $1,500,000
May 6, 2019 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
May 7, 2019 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
May 29, 2019 CARE Canada $2,500,000
May 30, 2019 International Rescue Committee $4,000,000
Jul. 3, 2019 Partners In Health Canada $11,149,825
Jul. 25, 2019 UN Population Fund $10,000,000
Sep. 9, 2019 UN Population $57,000,000
Sep. 30, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Oct. 30, 2019 CAUSE Canada $1,903,735
Dec. 3, 2019 Ghana Rural Integrated Development $1,331,880
Dec. 20, 2019 WHO – World Health Organization $2,000,000
Dec. 20, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Jan. 31, 2020 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights $10,887,328
Feb. 19, 2020 World Relief Canada $4,000,000
Feb. 24, 2020 CARE Canada $4,500,000
Feb. 25, 2020 World Vision Canada $2,000,000
Mar. 10, 2020 Doctors of the World Canada $4,500,000
Mar. 11, 2020 University of Calgary $3,449,579
Mar. 27, 2020 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
Mar. 27, 2020 CCISD $19,970,246
Mar. 28, 2020 Development and Peace $2,000,000
Mar. 20, 2020 CARE Canada $4,800,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Apr. 6, 2020 Université de Montréal $19,998,232
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Apr. 21, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,500,000
Apr. 23, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
Apr. 23, 2020 CARE Canada $1,250,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $2,600,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,500,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 18, 2020 Rise Up Feminist Digital Archive $24,990
Jul. 9, 2020 UN Development Programme $3,000,000
Sep. 4, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
Nov. 10, 2020 World Health Organization $2,236,000

While these groups do serve other purposes, they will often include terms like “sexual rights”, or “reproductive care”. These are euphemisms for abortion most times.

4. Conservative Cuckery On Abortion

This is the sad state of “conservatism” in Canada. There’s no moral or ideological objection to infanticide. Instead, they choose to virtual signal about how it’s wrong to do if it’s based on sex. Apparently being viewed as a misogynist is worse than being a murderer.

Males and females are to be treated equally, and apparently that applies to them being equally expendable.

5. Euthanasia, Medical Assistance In Dying

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
Jul. 20, 2017 Canadian Association for Community Living $399,895
Mar. 9, 2018 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
May 1, 2018 Moon, Christine $150,000
Oct. 1, 2018 Li, Madeline $818,550
Nov. 30, 2018 ADJEF, NB $14,000
Sep. 1, 2019 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
Sep. 2, 2019 ADJEF, NB $49,626

While we’re at it, let’s see what has been spent Federally on the topic of MAiD, or medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. 2 of the grants apparently cover mass euthanasia of cattle, and other farm animals.

Definitely some strange uses of taxpayer money.