Ronnie, Author at Canuck Law

September 10, 2020September 10, 2020

Some Standards And Tests Courts Apply In Cases

In case you ever want to take the Government to court, or are just morbidly curious about how things work. Here are some standards that get applied in actual cases.

https://www.canlii.org/

1. Legal Process In Canada

For more information in various processes, check out this series. Some useful tidbits for the average person.

2. Standard For Review (Appeals)

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference‑drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.

Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts. Where the question of mixed fact and law at issue is a finding of negligence, it should be deferred to by appellate courts, in the absence of a legal or palpable and overriding error. Requiring a standard of “palpable and overriding error” for findings of negligence made by either a trial judge or a jury reinforces the proper relationship between the appellate and trial court levels and accords with the established standard of review applicable to a finding of negligence by a jury. Where the issue on appeal involves the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence as a whole, it should not be overturned absent palpable and overriding error. A determination of whether or not the standard of care was met by the defendant involves the application of a legal standard to a set of facts, a question of mixed fact and law, and is thus subject to a standard of palpable and overriding error, unless it is clear that the trial judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application, in which case the error may amount to an error of law, subject to a standard of correctness.

FACTUAL FINDINGS: Overriding, palpable errors
ERRORS IN LAW: Standard of correctness

PRINCIPLES INVOLVED:
(1) Limiting the Number, Length and Cost of Appeals
(2) Promoting the Autonomy and Integrity of Trial Proceedings
(3) Recognizing the Expertise of the Trial Judge and His or Her Advantageous Position

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html</a5

3. Test For Gross Negligence

Per the Chief Justice: Comment as to attempting to define or replace by paraphrases the phrases “gross negligence” or “wilful and wanton misconduct”, and observations as to a trial judge’s duty in assisting a jury in an action based upon said enactment. The said phrases imply conduct in which, if there is not conscious wrong doing, there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people in charge of motor cars habitually govern themselves. Subject to that, it is entirely a question of fact for the jury whether conduct falls within the category of one or other of said phrases.

That case was about a motor vehicle accident, but the same principles should apply elsewhere.

McCulloch v. Murray, 1942 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1942] SCR 141
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1942/1942canlii44/1942canlii44.html

4. Gross Negligence Through Willful Blindness

[6] With respect, I think the judge failed to consider the concept of gross negligence that may result from the wrongdoer’s willful blindness. Even a wrongful intent, which often takes the form of knowledge of one or more of the ingredients of the alleged act, may be established through proof of willful blindness. In such cases the wrongdoer, while he may not have actual knowledge of the alleged ingredient, will be deemed to have that knowledge.

[8] In this case there is nothing like that. On the contrary, there are misrepresentations and payment of rebates. Before cashing the refund cheques, the respondents were either made aware of the misrepresentations or had strong suspicions as to the existence of misrepresentations or the legitimacy of the refunds themselves. By cashing the refunds and paying rebates, the respondents acquiesced and participated in the scheme that had been established to defraud the Agency. Their participation, which was free and voluntary, was an essential link in the realization of that scheme and they benefited economically from it. It is simply impossible not to conclude that this was willful blindness and consequently gross negligence.

This involved a rebate scheme that people had to know was fraudulent. Consequently, their willful blindness amouinted to gross negligence, according to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Villeneuve, 2004 FCA 20 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2004/2004fca20/2004fca20.html

5. Test To Obtain Interlocutory Injunction

There are three aspects to the test, all of which must be satisfied before interlocutory (temporary) injunctive relief can issue. An applicant must demonstrate:
(a) First, that there is a serious constitutional question to be tried;
(b) Second, that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and
(c) third, that the balance of convenience favours the injunction

[1] Manitoba (Attorney General) v Metropolitan Stores Ltd. 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 110
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii79/1987canlii79.html

[2] RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii64/1995canlii64.html

[3] Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) 2000 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 764
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc57/2000scc57.html

6. Test For Public Interest Standing

In order for a party to bring a case claiming “public interest standing”, there are a few questions that have to be answered. This is so they limit their time to important matters:
(a) Serious Justiciable Issue
(b) The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII), [2012] 2 SCR 524
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

(alternatively) …..

(a) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised by the claim;
(b) whether the plaintiff is directly affected by the proposed action or, if not, has a genuine interest in its outcome; and
(c) whether the action is a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court

Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, 1981 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii34/1981canlii34.html

7. Test For Striking Out Pleadings

On a motion to strike, a claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The approach must be generous, and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial. However, the judge cannot consider what evidence adduced in the future might or might not show.

A. The Test for Striking Out Claims
.
[17] The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html

8. Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada entrenched rights and protections of self represented litigants and accused persons into law. In the ruling they endorsed the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council. Now, while it’s nice to have that extra protection, it won’t help a person if they truly have no case.

9. All You Need To Know?

No, of course not. But the following should at least be useful information in determining your options and next move.

https://www.canlii.org/

September 7, 2020October 6, 2021

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

Getting your own politicians to protect free speech is difficult enough. How does it work when the rules are being drafted by unelected officials in other countries?

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter, big tech collusion in coronavirus, and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

IF you think that Canadian laws don’t do enough to protect free speech in general, or online free speech more specifically, just wait until it is regulated globally.

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

What Key Issues are discussed at the IGF?
As an example, key issues discussed at the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017 include:
.
– The impact of modern technologies on industry, society, and the economy;
– Multistakeholderism and Multilateralism and the setting of global norms;
– The new digital economy & sustainable development — providing opportunities or deepening divides?
– The role of government in policy making in the digital age;
– The emergence of a global, Internet society;
– Cybersecurity and cyber-threats;
– Artificial intelligence (AI);
– Critical Internet resources;
– Blockchains and bitcoins;
– Fake news;
– Access, inclusion and diversity;
– The pressing need for security in the Internet of Things;
– Digital divides;

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Advocates of strong free speech laws will notice (in particular) the topics of the role of government, and fake news. Makes one wonder if various Heads of State will decide what is real news and what is fake.

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

How is the global Internet Governance Forum funded?
.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat – based in Geneva, is sustained financially through the extra-budgetary Trust Fund Account managed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The nature of the IGF Trust Fund is such that it is voluntary and multi-donor driven, with varying contributions from Governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community, the private sector and the civil society. The IGF Trust Fund covers the administrative and operational costs of the IGF Secretariat including personnel, fellowships, and meeting costs (venues, interpretation, logistical costs, etc.); and funds the travel costs of MAG Members from developing countries. More details about the list of donors and funds received are available online. The Trust Fund also provides support to various intersessional activities, inter alia Best Practice Forums, major policy initiatives such as Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s), etc.

Each year, the organizational and conference cost of the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum is provided for by the Government of the host country, administered through a Host Country Agreement signed between the Government and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

Government of Finland
Government of Germany
European Commission
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
The Internet Society (ISOC)
Number Resource Organization (NRO)
Government of the Netherlands
Government of Switzerland
Government of the United States
Government of the United Kingdom
Government of Japan
Nominet UK
Tides Foundation
Verizon
IGFSA
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
AT&T
China Energy Fund Committee
Verisign
Afilias Global Registry Services
Facebook
Government of Portugal – Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
Microsoft Corporation
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft – Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks
Google
Government of Norway
Government of Sweden
Amazon
UNINETT Norid
The Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)
The Walt Disney Company
European Registry for Internet domains
CISCO
auDA Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)
Coordination Center for TLD
Danish Internet Forum
Politecnico di Torino
Community DNS
Government of the Republic of Korea
European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association
MCADE, LLC
NIC-MEXICO
Nic.at The Austrian Registry
Summit Strategies International
NIKKEI DigitalCORE
Ribose Inc.

In addition to the funding of various governments, the following names should be familiar to almost everyone: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon, and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues. We’re having this conversation under unusual circumstances at a pivotal moment in history.

In a world already fundamentally transformed by digital technologies, the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing have propelled the adoption of information and communications technologies and transformed the bedrock of humanity’s means of survival and prosperity: communication. To cooperate, we must communicate, and to communicate nowadays, we must use digital means. This is an important time for Internet governance.

COVID-19 has raised the stakes for global digital cooperation. Over the last few months, my office, in partnership with the international telecommunications unit, organized a series of webinars on digital cooperation in times of COVID-19 and beyond. These discussions considered challenges when urgent cooperation is required, such as with regard to the ongoing deficit in connectivity, with regard to human rights challenges and trust and security issues.

.
Health systems today don’t just have to treat the sick. They also have to deal with cyber attacks and the spread of dangerous, life-threatening misinformation.

In follow-up to the Secretary-General’s call for a global cease far, I also called for a digital cease fire. Global cooperation is necessary if we wish to overcome the pandemic without drastically compromising values like privacy and freedom of speech.

A few days ago, the Secretary-General presented his roadmap for digital cooperation which sets forth his vision for how the international community should engage on these and other key digital issues outlined in the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The roadmap describes a range of actions for all stakeholders from the United Nations system to member states, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the technical community. The United Nations, including the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, can truly serve as a platform for informed discussion and evidence-based decisions and practices.

The High-level Panel had noted, and I quote, “a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements, a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active and diverse participation by governments and the private sector, and more inclusive processes and better follow-up,” end of quote.

The IGF should be retooled to become more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. We must ensure that the IGF is a forum that governments value and want to attend while preserving the important space it represents for other stakeholder engagement.

The IGF’s coordinating and strategic role needs to be further strengthened. The roadmap includes a series of suggestions to further enhance the IGF, such as by improving fundraising, inclusion, and outcomes. I hope you will all be engaged in the follow-up of the action areas highlighted in the Secretary-General’s roadmap, and I hope you will all share your views specifically on how the IGF can be made even more responsive to the evolving challenges of digital cooperation.

Thank you for your engagement and support of the IGF and digital cooperation. We welcome and we need your ideas, your proposals, and your continued enthusiasm and support.
Thank you.

Don’t worry. It’s not like this will lead to a global body deciding what can or can’t be talked about or shared on the internet. This will absolutely never be abused.

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

The Global Internet Governance Forum goes on to propose several different ways that “digital cooperation” could be implemented on a world-wide scale. But don’t worry. It’s all just discussion, and nothing that gets suggested will ever become legally binding.

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

Save the date: The virtual Canadian IGF will be Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, 2020.
The Canadian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is Canada’s leading multi-stakeholder forum on digital and internet policy issues.
.
The inaugural event took place last year in Toronto and brought together over 200 representatives from government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle pressing public policy issues facing the internet.
.
The Canadian IGF is a national initiative of the global United-Nations-convened Internet Governance Forum, which holds annual meetings at different locations around the world. The Canadian IGF will produce a report detailing the unique, regional priorities facing Canadian stakeholders in attendance. This report will then be fed into the global IGF.

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

This isn’t just some abstract UN group far off. There exists a Canadian branch of the Internet Governance Forum, and its agenda is pretty much what one would expect.

Throughout the discussions, several common themes emerged across subject areas. These
included trends towards increased regulation; the necessity for plain language content; and,
the need for education and digital literacy. For stakeholders engaging in Internet governance
domestically and abroad, priorities going forward include the need for:
• A transnational, multistakeholder approach to internet governance.
• Awareness of/education on the issues, and how users can participate in discussions
related to internet governance.
• Solutions developed by any stakeholder group that are thoughtful, evidence-based, and
proportionate.
• Transparency from both governments and businesses in order to promote public trust
and build the capacity of users.

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

That is from page 5 on the report. They explicitly state that they view internet regulation as a global concept.

Key Issues
• Fake news and misinformation.
• Hateful online speech.
• Global and domestic threats.
• Data security

Discussion Overview
The panel’s discussion surrounded three main topics: 1) While foreign actors are a threat, domestic actors are an equal or higher risk when it comes to the dissemination of fake news and the proliferation of hateful speech online. Social media platforms also have to balance discouraging fake news, while ensuring they are not censoring a legitimate group; 2) Political actors are increasingly using social media platforms as a tool to get messages out; and 3) In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, academics have seen social media platforms reduce their access to datasets to study the fake news problem.

A recent report on Canadians’ use of social media shows that 94% of internet users here in this country have at least one social media account. The exposure to potential misinformation and disinformation campaigns is enormous.

Both technological and policy-based solutions are needed to confront the fake news problem. Facebook, for instance, has a three-pronged strategy focusing on people, technology and, increasingly, partnerships. Facebook has gone from 10,000 to 30,000 people dedicated to working on this challenge. In Q2 and Q3 of last year, Facebook removed approximately 1.5 billion fake accounts. The development of digital literacy skills is required to help users discern between real and fake news. The need for civility among users was also stressed. Canada must decide on its approach to fake news and newer technology, generally. Do we want to follow the lead of the United States or Europe?

A void has been created in the news world because traditional journalism is fading quickly. Social media platforms have become a new distribution channel for news. Panelists disagreed on whether the problem can be solved through technology or if it is more deeply rooted in human causes for which technology has no response

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

From pages 18/19 in the report: it seems that outlets like Facebook have taken it upon themselves to determine what accounts are fake, and what counts as fake news.

The authors of this report, (and of IGF more broadly), keep referring to “international stakeholders”. It seems to imply that other parties should have some say over free speech on the internet, instead of Canadians themselves.

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

It’s interesting that the report talks about the decline of traditional media (which is true), but omits the tax-payer funded bailout that the Canadian Government gave. In effect, old-stock media in Canada is now subsidized even more so. Even without the IGF, the media is already pretty corrupt.

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

This was covered a few months ago, but UNESCO has been embarking on a serious campaign against what it calls “misinformation”. UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources for information on coronavirus.

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

Tremendous progress has been made internationally in accepting that international law and the UN Charter apply in cyberspace. He urged the private sector to be involved in countering the number of malevolent tools being deployed in cyberspace, especially in developing more secure software.

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age
.
The consensus from the session on Fake News was that part of the complexity to tackle disinformation was the challenge to define it. From election interference to stoking up hate or increase religious hatred, there are also other multilayered levels such as spam, and misleading types of content like opinion pieces masking as objective journalism.

Irene Poetrant, Senior Researcher for Citizen Lab of University of Toronto agreed, saying definitions matter and in order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is important for government, private sector, civil society and institutions to work together, and that fake news is not just a problem of the west but a global problem.

“Misinformation is the antithesis of Google’s mission”, said Jake Lucchi, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact. Partnering with journalists, governments, and third parties, they try to find product solutions to identify misinformation and find ways to surface authoritative content. “Young people need to have critical thinking and skills to be able to navigate the internet and check our sources.” Improved algorithms and having policies in place to prohibit hate speech are also key – providers have to ensure misinformation are not allowed on their platforms.

That page is from the November 2018 meeting is Paris. While it sounds benevolent on the surface, who exactly will be the arbitrator of what is “fake news”? Remember, UNESCO (as an example), repeatedly says that only official sources can be trusted. This comes in spite of a wealth of information that CONTRADICTS those narratives. This raises the question of can valid media be shut down if factual reporting is tagged as “misinformation”?

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

Think that the “Digital Charter” was an idea suddenly concocted? It wasn’t. The UN Digital Cooperation Panel was launched in the Summer of 2018. When the New Zealand shooting happened in March 2019, the stage had already been set.

In a similar vein, the mass shooting in Nova Scotia appears to be a pretext for the Federal Government imposing a mass gun grab.

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

11 June 2020 – New York
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres presented today a set of recommended actions for the international community to help ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. The Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, global effort to address a range of issues related to the Internet, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies.

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation comes at a critical inflection point for digital issues, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating digitization and magnifying both opportunities and challenges of digital technology.

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

But don’t worry. These resolutions and agreements won’t ever become legally binding, or anything like that. These are just ideas being thrown around.

September 6, 2020December 25, 2023

CV #63: Were Products Descriptions Changed, Or Were CV Supplies Ordered Years Ago?

https://wits.worldbank.org/
The World Integrated Trade Solution is a partnership between several groups, including: International Trade Center; UN Conference on Trade and Development; UN Statistical Commission; World Trade Organization; and World Bank. The (apparent) ordering of Covid-19 medical supplies in 2017-2019 raised a lot of attention.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For example: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed. The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Changes In Product/Numbering System?

This article will specifically address 4 product codes that are in the WITS system as being coronavirus supplies. However, looking at the description, they appear to have general medical, scientific use.

300215 – CV test kits
COVID-19 Test kits (300215) imports by country in 2019
Additional Product information: Diagnostic reagents based on immunological reactions
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link To WITS Description

382100 – CV viral swab and kits
Swab and Viral transport medium set (382100) exports by country in 2018
Additional Product information: A vial containing a culture media for the maintenance of a viral sample and a cotton tipped swab to collect the sample put up together
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link to WITS Description

382200 – CV test kits
COVID-19 Test kits (382200) imports by country in 2019
Additional Product information: Diagnostic reagents based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid test.
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link To WITS Description

902780 – CV diagnostic kits
COVID-19 Diagnostic Test instruments and apparatus (902780) imports by country in 2018
Additional Product information: Instruments used in clinical laboratories for In Vitro Diagnosis. Colorimetric end tidal CO2 detector, sizes compatible with child and adult endotracheal tube. Single use.
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link to WITS Description

3. Canadian Imports Database

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cid-dic.nsf/eng/home

The Canadian Imports website lists the above items as generic medical imports. It’s possible that these were just normal imports, and that the codes have been re-labelled to be CV equipment.

4. Harmonized System Codes (Foreign Trade)

https://www.foreign-trade.com/reference/hscode.htm

The Harmonized System of coding results in much the same naming system as the Canadian Imports site.

5. About World Integrated Trade Solution

INTRODUCTION
The World Bank — in collaboration with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and in consultation with organizations such as International Trade Center, United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) — developed the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). This software allows users to access and retrieve information on trade and tariffs. Below is list of international organizations that compile this data:

The UNSD Commodity Trade (UN Comtrade) (UN Comtrade) database contains merchandise trade exports and imports by detailed commodity and partner country data. Values are recorded in U,S. dollars, along with a variety of quantity measures. The database includes information on more than 170 countries, and features statistics that have been reported to the United Nations since 1962. These statistics and data continue to be recorded according to internationally recognized trade and tariff classifications.

The UNCTAD Trade Analysis Information System (TRAINS) contains information on tariffs and non-tariff measures for more than 160 countries. The data on tariffs and non-tariff measures are recorded at the most detailed Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), at the National Tariff Line Level. Tariff information contains not only applied MFN tariff rates, but also to the extent possible, various preferential regimes including the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and other Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) rates including bilateral trade agreement tariff rates.

The WTO’s Integrated Data Base (IDB) contains imports by commodity and partner countries and Most Favored Nation (MFN) applied and, where available, data on preferential tariffs at the most detailed commodity level of the national tariffs. The Consolidated Tariff Schedule Data Base (CTS) contains WTO-bound tariffs, Initial Negotiating Rights and other indicators. The CTS reflects the concessions made by countries during goods negotiations (e.g., the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations). The IDB and CTS are practical working tools and there are no implications as to the legal status of the information contained therein.

The World Bank and the Center for International Business, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College Global Preferential Trade Agreements Database provide information on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) around the world, including agreements that have not yet been notified to the World Trade Organization. This resource helps trade policy makers, research analysts, the academia, trade professionals and other individuals better understand and navigate the world of PTAs.

WITS lists as its partners:

International Trade Center
UN Conference on Trade and Development
UN Statistical Commission
World Trade Organization
World Bank

What this amounts to is a system to track international trade of products and goods, and the tariffs that have been imposed on them.

6. UN Describes WITS As “Software”

Use UN Comtrade via World Integrated Trade
Solution (WITS)
The World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) is software developed by the World Bank, in close collaboration with United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), International Trade Center (ITC), United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) and World Trade Organization (WTO).
.
WITS was a free software which allows you to access the major trade and tariff data compilations, inclulding the UN Comtrade database maintained by UNSD. You can obtain access to UN Comtrade data in WITS once you have obtained a subscription to UN Comtrade.
.
WITS is now fully web based. No more installation required.
For subscriptions to UN Comtrade, please contact subscriptions@un.org or visit:
https://unp.un.org/Comtrade.aspx

Text Of Descriptor

WITS is just software that the World Bank and its partners came up with in order to facilitate and aid international trade, and tariffs.

7. UN Conference On Trade & Development

https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/Trade-Analysis/Non-Tariff-Measures/NTMs-WITS.aspx

The UNCTAD also describes WITS as a form of software designed to help organize and facilitate trade across national borders.

8. Shows Up In 2017-2019

Again, this could be the result of renumbering, or changing the names on existing codes. On the surface though, it looks like coronavirus supplies have been imported for years now.

Likely, it is just due to system changes, and that people (the author included), have been wondering over nothing.

While there are many reasons to go after government officials over this virus hoax, this isn’t one of them.

September 6, 2020October 28, 2022

Guest Post: Question Regarding Recent Antifa/BLM Riots In The US, By Blaise Vanne

(One of the many, MANY examples of Black Lives Matter harassing innocent bystanders. This was aired by Sky New Australia — of a DC restaurant — and shown August 25)

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; and 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.

Even when slavery is brought up, it is solely in the context of Whites oppressing and enslaving others. The rest of slavery’s history is never discussed This would destroy the narrative that Whites owe everyone else reparations, and shatter the idea that Whites should forever feel guilt over distant ancestors.

2. Contribution By Blaise Vanne

Since whites are disproportionately incarcerated more than Asians, do Asians, many of who have been here since the 1800s, then owe whites reparations? Should Democrats, who have caused the black underclass in their leftist cities, be the ones who pay? Can we count the $15 to 22 trillion already spent in the War on Poverty towards this figure (and where we now have MORE poverty than when we started) towards reparations? Will the Learjet leftists in Hollyweird be forced to open up their zillion room mansions to house inner city blacks (think far left Tom Hanks’ 14,500 sq. foot mega mansion in Pacific Hts, bought for $36mm in 2020), or will their self-serving pandering be more than enough? Will Nancy Pelosi’s highly protected (by men with GUNS) mega- mansion in Pacific Hts, San Francisco take in squatters? Will you ask multimillionaire Bernie Sanders to open up one of his three houses, such as the $600k one with 500’ of Lake Champlain lakefront? Reparations up to $14 trillion were suggested to Bret Baier by black zillionaire BET president Bob Johnson, but given that black Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates says 388,000 Africans landed on N. American shores, total, while in contrast Dr. Robert Davis of Ohio State says up to 1.25 million Europeans were taken as slaves by Muslims to their lands during roughly same period (3 times as many!), with their corsairs even reaching as far as Iceland, does that mean Muslims owe white Europeans $42 trillion (3x as much)? Can someone tell me where to sign up? Just asking. I could sure use the “free” dough.

Also, will white descendants of indentured servants get some reparations, or should descendants of blacks who owned other blacks as slaves owe reparations, such as Anthony Johnson (c. 1600 – 1670), a black Angolan who was one of the earlier slave owners legally recognized by the Colony of Virginia courts. Do we owe Russia money (the word “Slav” as in “Slavic language” derives from the same root as our word for slave (from late 13c., “a person who is the chattel or property of another,” from Old French esclave (13c.), in turn derived from Medieval Latin Sclavus “slave” – so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.), or perhaps the Irish, for by the 1630’s, Ireland was the primary source of slaves in the English slave trade. In fact, a 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Even Scientific American has questioned why the Irish surnames have such a strong presence in places such as Montserrat, Jamaica, St. Kitts, etc. Once Iceland gets paid for its citizens taken as slaves to Muslim North Africa and Turkey, does Iceland then owe Ireland money, in that perhaps half the population genetically speaking was Irish slaves, taken by Vikings? Oh yes, I forgot: Muslims also took many English as slaves, with perhaps 3 – 5,000 in Algiers alone. And of course, the Romans had almost everyone has slaves, many from Germanic tribes, so they must owe everyone?

Finally, if we are looking at systemic discrimination, any word from your founders in Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, re. their roots in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which is a descendant of the Maoist inspired New Communist Movement. The reason I ask is The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard Univ. Press, says that various flavours of communism and leftism murdered around 100 million people last century. Since Antifa seems to be concerned about “oppression,” they just may want to look at that.

Oh yes, I almost forgot! Could Antifa also advise why your allies in the US are now destroying statues of leading anti-slavery statues, including defacing Lincoln himself, as well as Matthias Baldwin, who fiercely fought against slavery 30 years before the Civil War (in which MILLIONS died to end slavery), John Greeleaf, a prominent Quaker pacifist/anti-abolitionist? Anyhow, I thought “Hate had no home here” – or do your friends in your Tripartite Pact have special exemptions?

Antifa… Looking forward to your answers. Or not.

September 5, 2020November 12, 2023

WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

The World Economic Forum, which has: Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, and Al Gore as Trustees, it still promoting the “Great Reset” agenda. The person in the top photo self-identifies as Theresa Tam, who is supposed to be the Public Health Officer of Canada.

People seem to think that Canada has control and sovereignty over its own health care and health systems. Let’s put that illusion to rest, once and for all.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

Background
-Established in 1946, Canada was the Third Member State to ratify the Constitution on August 29, 1946
-A Canadian Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Brock Chisholm, became WHO’s first Director General
-Canada’s points of intervention occur during the World Health Assembly, at the Executive Board, Regional Committees and by participating in the work of technical groups; Tropical Diseases Research, Human Reproduction and Child Health and Development. Technical input is with Health Canada
-International Affairs Directorate is the primary contact for WHO in Canada
-The Directorate performs a representation and co-ordination function for the Canadian Health Sector – Health -Canada, other federal agencies, the provinces, universities and the NGO sector
-Support increasing involvement by line branches in the technical work of WHO and its programmes (International Agency on Cancer, International Program on Chemical Safety, etc)

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

WHO originally adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR or Regulations) as the International Sanitary Regulations in 1951. Article 21 of the WHO Constitution (1948) empowers the World Health Assembly (the main policy-making organ of WHO) to adopt “regulations” concerning, among other things, infectious disease control; and the World Health Assembly adopted the International Sanitary Regulations under this authority in order to consolidate in one instrument the many international sanitary conventions negotiated since the late nineteenth century. [4] WHO changed the name of the Regulations to the IHR in 1969 and last revised them in 1983 when it removed smallpox from the IHR’s list of diseases. Under Article 22 of the WHO Constitution, Assembly-adopted regulations are binding on all WHO member states except those that notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within a specified time.

The International Health Regulations originally was called the International Sanitary Regulations, and was updated over time. An interesting article on it, by David Fidler.

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

WHA22.46 International Health Regulations
The Twenty- second World Health Assembly,
Having considered the recommendations of the Committee on International Quarantine in its fifteenth
report, Volume A, concerning the special review of the International Sanitary Regulations;
Noting that the Committee on International Quarantine reaffirmed the principles laid down in its fourteenth report, Volume II;
1 See Annex 5.
RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS 23
Noting also that the comments of Member States were considered by the Committee on International Quarantine at its fifteenth meeting when preparing the draft International Health Regulations to replace the existing International Sanitary Regulations,
1. cor1 ENDS the members of the Committee for their work; and
2. ADOPTS this twenty -fifth day of July 1969 the International Health Regulations annexed to this resolution together with Appendices 1 to 6 concerning the forms and certificates, and the rules applying thereto.’
Handb. Res., 10th ed., 1.3.9.3 Fourteenth plenary meeting, 25 July 1969 (Committee on Programme and Budget, sixth report)

1969 World Health Assembly, Boston.
official records, of WHA (Boston, 1969)

What all of this means is that the Committee on International Quarantine, (a subgroup of WHO), has laid out new guidelines for how to conduct a mass quarantine of people. Canada, as a member of the World Health Organization, is bound by these regulations.

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

If you think this issue is limited to Canada, you would be mistaken. New Zealand also adopted its version of a Quarantine Act, specifically to be compliant with the 1969 IHR.

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

Australia’s International Health Obligations
The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) are designed to prevent the international spread of infectious diseases while avoiding interference with international traffic and trade. As a Member State of the World Health Organization (WHO), Australia is obliged to comply with the IHR.

What are the International Health Regulations (2005)?
The IHR are an international legal instrument that is binding on 196 countries across the globe, including all Member States of the WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide.

The IHR, which entered into force on 15 June 2007, require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the WHO. Building on the unique experience of the WHO in global disease surveillance, alert and response, the IHR define the rights and obligations of countries to report public health events, and establish a number of procedures that the WHO must follow in its work to uphold global public health security.

Australia also must comply with the International Health Regulations of 2005. Of course, we must ask WHY these politicians are willingly handing over national sovereignty.

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

There were some changes in the 1995 version. However, I haven’t been able to find a version of it online. In any event, since the 2005 version is in effect, that matters more.

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

FOREWORD
A central and historic responsibility for the World Health Organization (WHO) has been the management of the global regime for the control of the international spread of disease. Under Articles 21(a) and 22, the Constitution of WHO confers upon the World Health Assembly the authority to adopt regulations “designed to prevent the international spread of disease” which, after adoption by the Health Assembly, enter into force for all WHO Member States that do not affirmatively opt out of them within a specified time period.

A quote from the foreword of the 2005 edition of the International Health Regulations. No comment needed here.

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

What are the International Health Regulations?
.
The International Health Regulations (2005), or IHR (2005), represents a binding international legal agreement involving 196 countries across the globe, including all the Member States of WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide. The purpose and scope of the IHR (2005) is to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.

In case this wasn’t clear from the last several sections, the international health regulations ARE in fact, legally binding on all member states.

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

APPENDIX 1
STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
REGULATIONS (2005) 1
Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on
15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands….

Appendix I, on page 59, lists all of the parties to the International Health Regulations.

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Article 23
The Health Assembly shall have authority to make recommendations to Members with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.

Article 33
The Director-General or his representative may establish a procedure by agreement with Members, permitting him, for the purpose of discharging his duties, to have direct access to their various departments, especially to their health administrations and to national health organizations, governmental or non-governmental. He may also establish direct relations with international organizations whose activities come within the competence of the Organization. He shall keep regional offices informed on all matters involving their respective areas.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members.

CHAPTER XVI – RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=7

The Constitution of the World Health Organization is listed in this book of basic documents. To sum up some of the main points:

(a) WHO has the authority to set regulation on quarantine matters
(b) WHO has authority over pharmaceutical matters
(c) WHO and its staff have legal indemnification
(d) WHO and its staff have access to national health data.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

The Paul Martin Liberals introduced Bill C-12, commonly known as the “Quarantine Act”. It passed 249-54, with only the Bloc Quebecois voting against it. It’s not a stretch to see what this was: the Federal Government domestically implementing regulations required by a supra-national body.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/meeting-4/notice
quarantine.act.dec.8.2004.hearings

Must be quite the coincidence that the Federal Government was conducting hearings into passing a Quarantine Act, around the same time the World Health Organization was updating its International Health Regulations. It’s almost like they coordinated on it.

Of course, there have been some modifications to the Quarantine Act over the years, but same principles remain intact.

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

At the historic 73rd World Health Assembly in May, Member States adopted a landmark resolution that called on WHO to initiate an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the lessons learned from the international health response to COVID-19.

Noting resolution EB146.R10 (2020) on strengthening preparedness for health emergencies: implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005), and reiterating the obligation for all States parties to fully implement and comply with the International Health Regulations (2005);

That’s right, the May 2020 Convention called for all nations to comply with their MANDATORY obligations under the IHR. “Obligation” means that it isn’t optional.

1. CALLS FOR, in the spirit of unity and solidarity, the intensification of cooperation and collaboration at all levels in order to contain and control the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its impact;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES the key leadership role of WHO and the fundamental role of the United Nations system in catalysing and coordinating the comprehensive global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the central efforts of Member States therein;

3. EXPRESSES its highest appreciation of, and support for, the dedication, efforts and sacrifices, above and beyond the call of duty of health professionals, health workers and other relevant frontline workers, as well as the WHO Secretariat, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic;

4. CALLS FOR the universal, timely and equitable access to, and fair distribution of, all quality, safe, efficacious and affordable essential health technologies and products, including their components and precursors, that are required in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global priority, and the urgent removal of unjustified obstacles thereto, consistent with the provisions of relevant international treaties, including the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the flexibilities within the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health;

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(4) to provide support to countries upon their request, in accordance with their national context, in support of the continued safe functioning of the health system in all relevant aspects necessary for an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing epidemics, and the uninterrupted and safe provision of population- and individual-level services, for, among other matters: communicable diseases, including through undisrupted vaccination programmes, and for neglected tropical diseases, noncommunicable diseases, mental health, mother and child health and sexual and reproductive health; and to promote improved nutrition for women and children;

Yes, they absolutely had to throw in a pledge to keep abortion accessible to all. If this “virus” is so deadly, why exactly are we pushing to kill more kids, and at a faster rate?

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(5) to support countries, upon request, in developing, implementing and adapting relevant national response plans to COVID-19, by developing, disseminating and updating normative products and technical guidance, learning tools, data and scientific evidence for COVID-19 responses, including to counter misinformation and disinformation, as well as malicious cyber activities, and to continue to work against substandard and falsified medicines and medical products;

Countering “misinformation and disinformation”? One can’t help but be reminded of Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, which called for defunding, and ultimately silencing critics of the population replacement agenda. Presumably this time those people are the ones questioning the official narrative.

https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly
ihr.may.2020.who.convention.free.speech

Aside from the self-congratulatory nature of the resolution, it is actually quite alarming, some of the contents within it.

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

To repeat a point made earlier, the International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are MANDATORY. They are binding on all member states, which Canada is one.

The Quarantine Act brought in by the Martin Liberals seems like a way to domestically implement what the WHO was doing globally. The timing is too coincidental, and they all speak the same. The Quarantine Act also specifies that it is binding both on Ottawa, and the Provinces.

Given the lies and contradictions coming from our officials, nothing they say can be trusted. All of this comes across as a means to implement a larger social agenda.

It’s not limited to Canada either. Two of the examples posted are Australia and New Zealand, nations similar in many ways to us.

September 4, 2020February 23, 2022

TSCE #13(C): Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/status-women/news/2019/07/government-of-canada-invests-in-projects-to-improve-gender-equality-in-the-justice-system.html
(3) https://www.leaf.ca/legal/reproductive-justice/
(4) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-calls-on-government-of-canada-to-fund-abortion-services-abroad/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/421/Private/C-225/C-225_1/C-225_1.PDF
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-urges-toronto-public-library-to-reconsider-event-featuring-meghan-murphy/
(6) https://www.leaf.ca/leaf-and-the-asper-centre-welcome-the-ontario-court-of-appeals-decision-in-r-v-sharma/
(7) https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-consent-003452043.html
(8) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/illegal-organ-trade
(9) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/S-204/first-reading

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001

[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001

A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.

It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.

LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.

And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.

Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r

1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski

1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle

1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan

1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis

1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family

2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers

2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum

2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break
leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide

LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.

LEAF is Anti-Life

1987 Baby R
1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
1991 R. v. Sullivan
1996 R v. Lewis
1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
2003 R. v. Demers
2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
2016 R v. MB

Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.

An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.

We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.

What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.

Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
–Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada

(also addressed to)

-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic

Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.

It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.

It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.

LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.

In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:

Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
Master’s degree in women’s studies
Wrote for feminist publications
Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
Believes women are oppressed
Pro-abortion
Pro-gay agenda

Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.

For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.

Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?

While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.

“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.

LEAF supports Ontario’s largely inappropriate sex-ed ciricculum.

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.

Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.

The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.

Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.

And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.

A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.

“Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.

There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.

While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.

In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.

In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.

A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.

According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.

In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.

The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.

Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.

This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.

Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.

Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.

This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.

It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.

The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.

Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.

And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.

Hear the audio clip starting at 8:59:30.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248439

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Free Speech Submission womens LEAF

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157

In 2019, LEAF actually made submissions in the “online hate” study, and took the position AGAINST free speech. Again, this was added after the original article was released.

1. Legal Process In Canada

2. Standard For Review (Appeals)

3. Test For Gross Negligence

4. Gross Negligence Through Willful Blindness

5. Test To Obtain Interlocutory Injunction

6. Test For Public Interest Standing

7. Test For Striking Out Pleadings

8. Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

9. All You Need To Know?

Share this:

Like this:

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Changes In Product/Numbering System?

3. Canadian Imports Database

4. Harmonized System Codes (Foreign Trade)

5. About World Integrated Trade Solution

6. UN Describes WITS As “Software”

7. UN Conference On Trade & Development

8. Shows Up In 2017-2019

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Contribution By Blaise Vanne

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Share this:

Like this: