Author: Ronnie

Posted on

The Vaccine Confidence Project, And “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(2) http://archive.is/szSHr
(3) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(4) http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
(5) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/vcp-mission
(6) http://archive.is/saio2
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=892445&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/xxQJe
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3653&regId=895048&blnk=1
(10) http://archive.is/AYdhO
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634&blnk=1
(12) http://archive.is/GH1Cy
(13) https://twitter.com/vaccine_trust

3. Context For This Article

The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.

Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.

Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.

In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.

Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.

4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.

Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.

This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.

In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.

5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.

According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.

This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.


efpia-health-collaboration-guide_2019_final

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.

This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.

To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.

6. VCP’s Twitter Page

To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/VaxPsychStrath
https://twitter.com/trevormundel
https://twitter.com/IFPMA
https://twitter.com/voice_evidence

This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.

7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.

Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

8. Programs Operate In Canada

Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.

9. Tip Of The Iceberg

This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.

Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.

In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.

Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.

Posted on

Does The Canadian Government Actually Support Human Trafficking?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

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. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Context For This Piece

There was a story in the mainstream media today about the Trudeau Government has cut funding for the victims of trafficking and exploitation, forcing 9 centers across Canada.

For someone who repeatedly brags about being a “feminist” the hypocrisy is mind boggling. Trudeau will shovel out money (borrowed from the international banking cartel), for just about any cause, but not to help women and girls who really need it.

Beyond the shame and hypocrisy, there is a question that genuinely needs to be asked: does this government actually support human trafficking and sex trafficking in Canada? Consider some things that have happened in recent years.

  1. Agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact
  2. Even terrorists allowed back into Canada
  3. Certain ideologies embraced as “diversity”
  4. Refusing to properly enforce national borders
  5. Allowing foreign NGOs to rewrite our border laws
  6. Reduced penalties for child sex crimes
  7. Cutting funding for help for victims

The pattern this government has shown can be described as:

[A] Come off as unserious, pandering, or overly compassionate; and
[B] Divert attention away from the real objective

All of these events in isolation “could” be viewed simply as extremely incompetent governing. It may be seen as excessive pandering and virtue signalling. However, what if these events were in fact connected? Could all of these inexplicable policy moves be to promote the same goal?

To avoid confusion, let’s distinguish two things:

[I] SMUGGLED people are accomplices who willingly cross illegally
[II] TRAFFICKED people are prisoners who are brought somewhere

Much of the information has been addressed in earlier parts of the TSCE (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation) series above. References will be made, but feel free to go back through the individual stories for more information. The actions made by our government seem to facilitate both trafficking and smuggling.

4. Global Migration Agreements

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

unhcr.guidelines.exceptions
UNCHR.advice.for.illegal.crossings

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12) Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
competences
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
Also, consider the fact that the United Nations has studied the connection between illegal immigration and human smuggling. This is from a 2011 study released.

un.global.migration.compact

#4: Ensure proof of identity? That might make it easier to help get falsified documents, either from a government or a private party.

#5: Enhancing pathways for migration? Both from a legal and illegal point of view it seems open to abuse.

#9: Even though the Global Migration Compact claims to oppose human smuggling, it explicitly states (see above picture), that people who are part of smuggling won’t be prosecuted. Remember, smuggling is voluntary, unlike being trafficked.

#10: Despite wanting to monitor “irregular” routes — which are ILLEGAL entries, the UNHCR openly encourages people to enter Canada illegally, and even provides advice on how to do it. Seems pretty unhelpful to condemn human trafficking and smuggling, but then offer advice on how to circumvent local laws.

#13: Detention only as a last resort. It won’t help to deter people from bringing others in (legally or otherwise) if there are no real penalties.

#17: Sensitizing the media and promoting “proper language”. There is also a provision for pulling the funding for media deemed to be hateful. Could lodging valid criticism of human trafficking and smuggling be considered hateful?

#20: Faster, safer and cheaper remittances and “financial inclusion”? Could also double as a way to launder money out of the country, or help finance the next group of people to bring over.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this seems very obvious, but let’s hammer it home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

While the UN agreements Canada signs (the 2018 Global Migration Compact is just one) are “claiming” that respect for borders is important, the truth is that they do a lot to undermine national borders. And weak borders make for easy smuggling and trafficking.

5. Repatriation Of Terrorists To Canada

Early in Trudeau’s first mandate, Bill C-6 was introduced. It prevented dual national convicted of terrorism or treason from having their Canadian citizenship stripped and being deported. While it’s true that the UN supports terrorists being able to remain (or return) to any country they hold a passport for, this government supported doing it anyway.

Beyond terrorists themselves, the government supports a continued replacement migration from areas of the world where women and girls don’t have equality rights, and abuse it rampant.

One has to ask why though. It may be to appear compassionate in the eyes of others. It may also be to bring back or normalize an ideology that has a very different idea about what it means to be an adult. In other parts of the world, women and children have little to no rights. Remember, it’s not exploitation if it’s cloaked as multiculturalism.

6. Embracing Incompatibles As “Diversity”

True, all politicians pander to get votes. However, our current government takes that issue much farther, and embraces the globohomo agenda. The current LGBTQ movement, lacking real issues to address, has gone down the path of sexualizing children. Even former supporters are abandoning the movement. Breaking down any sense of normality is not healthy for society, but this government supports it.

Several associates of Justin Trudeau are known pedophiles. True, one shouldn’t be judged by the company they keep, but there is a limit to that philosophy. Trudeau himself has had many bizarre claims levelled against him. (For the sake of limiting liability, let’s leave it at that.)

The government’s love of promoting (and financing) abortion at home and abroad is creepy. There’s something Satanic about the eugenics of children.

What is the real agenda behind pushing for the sexual liberation of children, or at least the ones who aren’t aborted? Is there some more heinous shoe yet to drop?

7. Lack Of Genuine Border Enforcement

When Federal politicians are seriously discussing the ideas of expedited work permits and health care for illegals, they aren’t serious about border security. In a similar vein, when amnesty-for-illegals pilot programs are starting up, or sanctuary cities are allowed, how does that secure the border? When we don’t have a proper entry/exit system tracking people across the border, how are we more secure?

Beyond the politicians refusing to implement real border security, NGOs like: (a) Bridges not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; (c) Solidarity Across Border, and others, coordinate in helping to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. The information is easy to find, yet the authorities do nothing.

There are many theories as to why the powers that be are standing down. It could be a globalist agenda. It could be open borders. It could be to import cheaper labour.

But there is another possibility. If a group of people wanted to smuggle (or traffic) young and vulnerable people across the border, what better way to do it? Would it not be much easier to move people across the border if there is no real border control?

8. Foreign NGOs Writing Our laws

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), have been trying to effectively erase the Canada/U.S. border for a long time. They do it by going lobbying Parliament to rewrite our laws, and they do it by going to court and challenging our laws as “inhumane”. Here are 3 attempts that have been made in about the last 30 years.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

The above notes are from part 16 of the series, and outline 3 attempts in Federal Court that NGOs have made to eliminate the Canada/U.S. border. This is by no means all the attempts that have been made, nor is the only border that these groups try to dissolve. Note: if a border cannot effectively stop people from entering, then it ceases to exist.

With the last attempt to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, the Government decided instead to just let “refugees” from the United States enter anyway through regular ports of entry.

Also worth noting is that the same NGOs who go to court for “refugee rights” and “immigrant rights” are the same ones who lobby politicians against having effective borders and tight immigration rules. The lawfare is waged both in Court, and in Parliament.

Since the Federal Government seems onboard with the open borders agenda, one has to ask why. Is it a misguided gesture of compassion to the entire world? Or is it a way to reduce barriers to letting certain people in?

9. Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

In 2016, the Liberals introduced Bill C-32, which would have lowered the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This would mean striking Section 159 from the criminal code. After public outrage, the bill was allowed to die. However, the idea was simply stuffed into Bill C-75, which also reduced the potential criminal penalties for many serious crimes.

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

Bizarrely, Sections 279.02(2), and 279.03(2), which related to adults, is still an indictable offence. Guess it’s not as bad when it happens to minors.

While reducing the terrorism penalties is a messed up decision, the inclusion of these other charges largely passed unnoticed by the public. Even this website initially missed it. If it really was about pandering to Muslims (who disproportionately commit terrorism), why add these offenses in as well?

Was the focus on the terrorism offences a means to divert attention away from the watering down of child sex crimes? Is this a way to water down the penalties for people getting caught, but without making it obvious that it was the case?

10. Cutting Funding To Victims’ Shelters

The Government of Canada brags about how much it takes the matter seriously. Yet, a recent news story reported that several groups which help victims can’t get their funding renewed.

The London Abused Women’s Centre (LAWC) said programs that help over 600 women and girls who are victims of human trafficking are being cancelled after the federal government denied funding.

LAWC, in addition to other organizations, was receiving funding through the Measures to Address Prostitution Initiatives (MAPI) fund, a five-year program that ended in March 2020.

MAPI provided funding for women and girls at risk of trafficking and those who were trafficked.

While in operation, the program helped a total of 3,107 trafficked, prostituted, sexually-exploited and at-risk women and girls in London. This included individual long-term, trauma-informed service to 650 trafficked and sexually exploited women and girls, 939 at-risk women and girls who attended groups, 173 family members from across Canada looking for their missing daughters, and 1,343 at-risk women and youth through community outreach.

However, the government recently declined to renew funding for several institutions devoted to helping trafficked victims. This was particularly bitter considering how Trudeau routinely markets himself as a feminist. Despite the recent spending spree, the Federal Government doesn’t have the money available for them.

There is another way to look at this. What organizations loudly advocate for victims though? Which groups want to see this issue pushed more in the media? What people are most likely to try to track down identities of perpetrators involved? And unlike some portions of law enforcement, who is ideologically driven to put a stop to it?

One way to help keep trafficking alive in Canada is to bankrupt institutions that are devoted to fighting this injustice. Intentional or not, that is the effect.

11. Connecting The Dots

How else would one explain the series of events as described in the above section? If not a coordinated effort to facilitate human smuggling and trafficking, then what are they? Just coincidental?

Although agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact explicitly state they oppose human smuggling, the text elsewhere says otherwise. The document objects to smuggled people to be prosecuted; it demands free social services, even for illegals; pensions and social benefits are rights; access to identity documents is a right; detention of illegals is to be minimized; and so on. The compact invites people to come to the West illegally, because of the rewards it offers. And smugglers will take advantage of it.

Our government believes that anyone with Canadian identity documents should be allowed back into Canada, regardless of what crimes they may have committed abroad. Since we’re “repatriating” Canadians, maybe they’ll bring back a child or two as well.

The globohomo agenda has gotten even more bizarre, where things like drag queen story hour are becoming normalized. Sex Ed. is being pushed on ever younger children, and younger children are being encouraged to transition. Is this a deliberate plan to desensitise the public?

Our politicians (all parties) do not take border security seriously. They allow people to come illegally, and be released into the public almost immediately. Successive governments have also failed to implement a genuine entry/exit system to track people crossing. Cities like Toronto and Hamilton are “sanctuary” cities, meaning illegals can reside there and get social benefits. Is this incompetence, or does not having border security make it harder to track smuggled and trafficked people?

Not only do our politicians and courts fail to act in the interests of Canadians, they allow NGOs (often foreign ones) to rewrite our laws. Foreign NGOs are given “public interest standing” to challenge our border laws in court. Those same groups are able to legally “lobby” Canadian public officials into supporting legislation to weaken existing laws, or just not enforce current laws. Consequently, our leaders work for outsiders, not for us.

While most people were focused on the reduced terrorism penalties in Bill C-75, many offences against children were listed as well. Why would a government not want such heinous crimes to be severely punished?

Despite repeatedly professing to support women and girls (especially when they’re in need), the Federal Government recently declined to continue funding groups to aid victims of trafficking. There’s money to spend on everything, but not on groups who would fight for these victims.

If the Government doesn’t support human trafficking, what else could explain this? Or is it all unrelated?

Posted on

Ottawa Sends IFFIm Money For “Vaccine Bonds”; GAVI/GPEI Grants

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

Several articles in the Canuck Law series on the CV “planned-emic” have focused on the lobbying and influence peddling behind the vaccine agenda. This one covers the recent plans to hand out more money under that guise. However, there is an interesting twist here.

The Federal Government recently announced it will be giving $790 million of taxpayers’ money to 3 separate institutions. 2 of the grants (the recipients are GAVI/GPEI) are for vaccine initiatives. The other is to for so-called “vaccine bonds”, (issued by IFFIm). Of course Canada doesn’t have the money to send abroad, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.

The specific grants:

  1. $125M for Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)
  2. $475M for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI)
  3. $190M for Global Polio Eradication (GPEI)

It’s the first item on this list that is the most concerning. The $125 million to IFFIm contribution won’t be paid directly for research and development. Instead, the IFFIm will issue bonds to the World Bank, who in turn will put those bonds on the market. The World Bank will pay money back to IFFIm, less profits that the bond holders will be making on the bonds.

Obvious question: Why aren’t we giving the money targeted for the IFFIm directly to GAVI, if that’s who will use it? Why are we including at least 3 middlemen (IFFIm, World Bank, and Investors)? Why is taxpayer money — or taxpayer debt — being used to help private interests advance their stock portfolios?

We know that GAVI is heavily financed by the Gates Foundation. Also, it turns out that IFFIm has its administrative costs heavily funded by GAVI. By extension, this means that the Gates Foundation is financing the operation of IFFIm. GAVI is just being used as an intermediary here.

1. Vaccine Bonds A Growth Industry

IFFIm is a role model for socially responsible investing in global development, which faces constant funding challenges and unpredictability. Vaccine Bonds provide investors with a unique opportunity to realise an attractive and secure rate of return and diversify their portfolios while helping save young lives. It’s not a donation, it’s an investment. IFFIm has been so successful, it has changed the face of global development funding.

IFFIm’s unique financing model for global health is built upon partnerships. IFFIm receives long term, legally binding pledges from donor countries and, with the World Bank acting as Treasury Manager, turns these pledges into bonds. The money raised via Vaccine Bonds provides immediate funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Since, 2000 Gavi has dramatically improved access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries.

So how does this work? Let’s go through the steps:

  • Nations make binding pledges to pay IFFIm at a later date
  • The IFFIm uses those pledges to generate bonds
  • The IFFIm then sells bonds to the World Bank for cash
  • The IFFIm gives its new money to GAVI for vaccines.
  • The World Bank sells bonds to outside investors
  • Investors make profits on their bonds (presumably)
  • Nations (over time) pay their commitments to IFFIm

Something is missing from this list, correct? Investors are making money off of their bonds, or else they wouldn’t buy them. There are also salaries and administrative costs to factor in. So where is the extra money coming from?

Hypothetically, bond owners can resell the bonds to other people. That does actually happen in practice. However, that would only work for a limited time. Furthermore, the market for such bonds is fairly limited.

One option is that the IFFIm would be selling the bonds at a discount to the World Bank (but still expecting full price from the donor nations). For example, Spain might issue a pledge for $10 million, and IFFIm will sell a bond to the World Bank for $9 million. The investor(s) will get $10 million back. In this scenario, GAVI ends up with $9 million, and investors with $1 million. Of course administrative costs need to be factored in.

Another option is that the donor nations will end up footing the bill for the returns that investors get. Using Spain again, they will pledge $10 million over a period of years, but then have to pay the full bonds plus perhaps another million in interest.

Either case is horribly inefficient. By adding these middlemen, it means that nowhere near the full amount of donor money is receiving its intended target. Either money is skimmed off the initial pledge, or the pledge turns out to be far more expensive than originally thought.

This isn’t to endorse GAVI’s agenda, but giving them the money directly would have meant they actually get the full amount. This setup means that a large percentage will never be received.

Much like with the climate bonds industry, vaccine bonds don’t actually contribute to public well being. In both cases, it allows private parties to profit off of the slush funds that are generated. These bonds don’t make the weather, or vaccines, any better. The two cases have considerable overlap.

The main difference is that while the climate change industry is simply a gigantic waste of public money, the vaccines that ultimately result can do incredible harm to the people who take it.

2. A Look At IFFIm’s Financials

According to the latest financial statement, IFFIm is sitting on $1.198 billion in equity (or assets minus liabilities). That being said, it’s difficult to see how much solvent this operation is. The bulk of their “assets” are pledges from nations down the road.

Disclaimer: This is not professional accounting information, just a lay impression from reading through the reports.

IFFIm 2006 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2007 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2008 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2009 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2010 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2011 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2012 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2013 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2014 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2015 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2016 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2017 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2018 Trustees Report and Financial Statements

According to the most recent IFFIm annual report, these were the trustees of the company at the time.

These aren’t doctors or any sort of scientists or medical professionals. These are bankers whose job it is to turn the slush fund into a very profitable venture.

Various nations (Canada is now one) are pledging money to the IFFIm, who then turns around and issues bonds which it sells to the World Bank. Those bonds are then sold to private investors.

The steps for this were outlined in the last section. Again, what benefit does this give to donor nations? Either the bonds are sold at a discount, or donor nations will be paying the interest as well (or perhaps both). But this does generate a nice slush fund for the banker to play around with.

According to the last financial statement, on page 18, GAVI contributed $1 million (in U.S. dollars) to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunization for administrative costs. Essentially this means that GAVI is funding the operation of IFFIm, or rather that the Gates Foundation is.

Nation Date Years Of Bond Amount ($USD)
Australia 2011 19 $176,463,000
Australia 2016 5 $26,469,000
Brazil 2018 20 $20,000,000
France 2006 15 $426,931,000
France 2007 19 $993,072,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
Italy 2006 20 $542,195,000
Italy 2011 14 $29,203,000
Netherlands 2017 5 $91,616,000
Netherlands 2009 7 $66,667,000
Norway 2006 5 $127,000,000
Norway 2010 10 $172,829,000
South Africa 2007 20 $20,000,000
Spain 2006 5 $217,015,000
Sweden 2006 20 $30,851,000
UK 2010 19 $319,225,000

Those listings are the “legally binding” pledges that various nations have made to IFFIm over the last 15 years. Doubtful that any nation ever held a referendum.

In February 2019, the IFFIm board issued a new indicative funding confirmation to Gavi of US$ 50 million comprised of US$ 45 million to help in the funding of new and underused vaccine support programmes and US$ 5 million to help in the funding of health systems strengthening programmes.

In March 2019, the IFFIm board approved a proposal for Gavi to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation through the issuance of IFFIm bonds backed by a new pledge from the Kingdom of Norway to IFFIm. CEPI is a global public-private partnership whose mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks. The approved arrangement will accelerate the availability of funding for programmes by drawing on capacity to raise financing on international capital markets based on long-term pledges from its Grantors.

This is from page 23 of the latest report. IFFIm approved a proposal by GAVI…. Okay, so does GAVI need to get permission from IFFIm? Bonds were issued to back a new pledge from Norway.

Considering how long this whole thing has been going on for, one has to ask if the current “pandemic” is just an excuse to upscale the existing industry.

It doesn’t get much more cliché than this: The IFFIm is using 2 (yes 2) limited liability corporations (LLCs) in the Cayman Islands to issue certificates to run IFFIm’s operations. Now, the Cayman Islands is notorious for their bank secrecy laws. If the IFFIm is a completely legitimate organization, one has to wonder why they didn’t simply set up an LLC — or a trust — in the UK, where they are based.

3. Canada To Fund Global Vaxx Agenda

Canada is pledging $600 million to a global public-private partnership that works on vaccination campaigns in the world’s poorest countries, International Development Minister Karina Gould announced today.

In addition to the funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Canada is committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s strategy, Gould said.

Gould made the announcement at the launch of the Group of Friends of Solidarity for Global Health Security virtual meeting, which she co-hosted with her counterparts from Denmark, Qatar, South Korea and Sierra Leone.

Money aside, there is something else to note: Karina Gould makes it clear that it is (supposedly) Canada’s job to provide vaccinations for the entire world.

“As a global community, we must work to ensure that those most vulnerable, including women and children, have access to vaccinations to keep them healthy wherever they live,” Gould said.

“COVID-19 has demonstrated that viruses do not know borders. Our health here in Canada depends on the health of everyone, everywhere.”

How convenient for Canada that all of the parliamentary hurdles have already been cleared for this. Raj Saini introduced M-132 back in November 2017. Hearings took place in the fall of 2018. Parliament formally adopted the recommendations in March 2019. See this piece and also this piece. The timing certainly worked out well.

Now the same pharmaceutical companies that were previously pushing for the passage of M-132 will be able to reap the rewards: Government contracts to develop vaccines. In a recent move, AbCellera received a $175.6 million grant to work on a coronavirus cure.

Rest assured, many more Government contracts will be handed out soon enough.

4. GAVI Gets Funding From Gates

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

It was addressed in part 4 and part 5 how GAVI gets some of their funding, and that GAVI has been lobbying the Federal Government for 2 years. Between March 2018 and January 2020, there are 20 communications reports, according to records from the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Part 6 of the series shows that many of the lobbied bureaucrats follow Bill Gates.

Crestview Strategy lobbyists have ties to various political parties across the spectrum, including the Conservative Party of Canada. This lobbying seems to have paid off, as GAVI’s fees for paid influencers have resulted in a significant Government contract.

With this announcement, the Trudeau Government will be handing $475 million to GAVI. This means that it will actually be giving $475 for Gates to control. Considering that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains one of the biggest donors to GAVI, no one can deny that Gates has significant influence over it.

5. GPEI Partners With Gates/GAVI

From its own website, it appears that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative partners with several prominent groups including:

  • World Health Oranization
  • Rotary
  • Center for Disease Control
  • UNICEF
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance)

On paper, it looks like Canada is giving $190 million ($47.5M annually for 4 years), to a separate organization, but these groups all work together.

6. World Bank A Full Partner

From this 2018 speech, the World Bank outlined just how varied and widespread its goals really were.

As you know, UNCTAD estimates that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) by 2030 will require $3.9 trillion to be invested in developing countries each year. It also notes that with annual investment of only $1.4 trillion, the annual investment gap is $2.5 trillion. Let me therefore take this opportunity thank the Group of Friends of SDG Finance for your leadership on mobilizing private finance to achieve these important goals. At the World Bank Group, we have equally strengthened our focus on mobilizing the private sector for development.

We have this dream of what the world should be like, and we only need $3.9 trillion per year to make it a reality. The article to too long to quote in its entirety, but there are some sections that need to be addressed.

Last year, the World Bank issued the world’s first global pandemic bond that will channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic. It was designed to prevent another Ebola crisis, and was the first time that pandemic risk in low income countries was transferred to the financial markets. Such a facility, will enable the world to respond more promptly than it did when the 2013-2014 Ebola crisis happened, thereby minimizing the death toll and the negative impact on the economy.

To date we have provided $3.9 billion in catastrophe and weather risk transactions, of which nearly $2 billion has been executed in the last ten months. We have seen increased demand from clients as the frequency of extreme weather events has increased. Cat bonds that transfer risk to the capital markets have become an important complement to emergency funds, budget reserves, and contingent credit lines because it allows countries to leverage their budgets to offer greater protection when disasters strike.

Yes, pandemic bonds a are real thing, and they operate as a form of insurance. People are willing to buy these bonds when times are good, and returns are assured. However, when a pandemic (or multiple pandemics) occur, the funds get depleted pretty quickly. Hence the reluctance to payout initially.

New initiatives that we are also exploring include innovative mechanisms to expand financing for education, famine and World Bank seasoned loans to institutional investors. Examples are:
.
1) The Education Commission’s International Financing Facility for Immunization, IFFEd, a fund that will not only reduce the cost to developing countries of financing education projects but also increase the capacity of multilateral institutions to lend for education projects. IFFEd is supported by the World Bank and regional development banks. IFFEd has raised $2 billion for education with a goal of $10 billion. It is expected that every billion of aid will leverage $4 billion from development banks. On May 11, 2018 IFFEd was endorsed by the UN Secretary General.

Is the IFFed related to the IFFIm? Are funds just being moved around, or is this really the same group?

In this respect we partnered with Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) on research with respect to sustainable fixed income investing. We expect this research to promote strategies for including sustainability criteria in investment decisions. We are equally conducting research for the G20 by engaging investors to come up with concrete actions to scale up long-term sustainable investments and support the SDGs.

This is rather creepy. If anyone in Japan ever reads this article, consider pulling your money out of the pension plan.

The World Bank is buying bonds from IFFIm, and those bonds are based on pledges from donor nations. Considering the globalist nature of many World Bank Initiatives, is this an underhanded way to get nations to fund projects they otherwise couldn’t sell to the public.

7. Gov’t Is Throwing Money Away

The $125 million pledge that is going to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm), is essentially being used to create bonds for bankers to sell privately. Canadian taxpayer debt is being used to finance a portion of this slush fund, which doesn’t actually help improve global health.

The vaccine bonds in many ways parallel the climate bonds. Nations pledge large sums of money, and the handlers use those pledges to create bonds which are sold on the private market. Neither benefit the public at large, but they do make some people extremely wealthy.

As for the grants to GAVI and to GPEI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily finances both organizations. It is foolish to think that they are independent. Noted early, GAVI has been using the lobbying firm Crestview Strategy to push their agenda for the last 2 years. There are 20 communications reports on file.

The Federal Government has quite bluntly stated that they see providing “global health care” as critical to keeping Canadians healthy. Effectively, this is free health care for the world, paid for by Canadians. Or at least that is what Ottawa claims it believes.

Of course, mainstream outlets like the CBC won’t give you the entire story. Their job is to ensure Canadians don’t see the big picture.

(1) “https://www.kff.org/news-summary/canada-commits-cad-600m-to-gavi-cad-190m-to-gpei-over-4-years/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vaccination-canada-gavi-covid-pandemic-1.5566532
(3) http://archive.is/RxcxT
(4) https://iffim.org/about-iffim
(5) http://archive.is/BCjMe
(6) https://iffim.org/investor-centre/vaccine-bonds
(7) http://archive.is/lPUOc
(8) http://polioeradication.org/
(9) http://archive.is/NTy9J (2013 archive)
(10) http://archive.is/iEvNd (2020 archive)
(11) https://www.worldbank.org
(12) http://archive.is/iHVTJ (2019 archive)
(13) http://archive.is/IPLo5 (Current)
(14) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2018/05/15/leveraging-innovative-finance-for-realizing-the-sustainable-development-goals
(15) http://archive.is/Cpx4c
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-7-climate-bonds-a-100t-industry-intl-econ-forum-of-the-americas/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-16-dr-shiva-ayyadurai-on-how-the-carbon-tax-works/

Posted on

Bill C-32/C-75; Lowered Age Of Consent; Reduced Penalties For Crimes Against Children

In 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that it was a priority to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This was done under the guise of equality, and not treating people differently due to sexual orientation.

A mea culpa to begin with: although Bill C-75 was covered in the fall of 2018 (see previous review), it seems that I missed the more subtle aspect of the bill. Watering down penalties for terrorism offences was only part of it. C-75 was also a smokescreen for bringing more degeneracy to Canada, but under the radar. Yes, most terrorism committed in the West is done by Muslims, and that was how to accomplish this.

The agenda can be summarized as such:

  • Focus on ideology, reduced terrorism penalties
  • Let other perversions slip through

Most commentators (yes, guilty here too), focused on the terrorism and let far too much of the other content go pretty much unnoticed. It’s time to fix that.

One particular example, was the Prime Minister using the opportunity to slip in a clause to lower the age of consent (for anal) from 18 years old to 16, by repealing Section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was previously introduced in Bill C-32, but because of a public backlash, it never got past first reading. By embedding it in Bill C-75 instead, it passed almost unnoticed.

After some serious thought, this article will be made part of the TSCE series (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation). The reason being, that Bill C-75 makes it easier to harm children by reducing the penalties for child predators and child sex predators.

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

Criminal Code
Amendment to the Act
R.‍S.‍, c. 9 (3rd Supp.‍), s. 3
1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.

Clause 1: Existing text of section 159:
.
159 (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

Yes, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was apparently a priority of the Trudeau Government from early on. One has to wonder why there is this level of pandering. A cynic may suspect there could be a personal stake in getting the age lowered.

However, the public was very unhappy and suspicious about this bill, and why this was a priority for the government. What is interesting is that although Bill C-32 never got past first reading, the idea of lowering the age of consent still went ahead. Instead, it would be slipped into Bill C-75.

A serious alternative: if Trudeau wants all sexual acts to be treated the same, what would be wrong with RAISING the age of consent for all acts to 18? This is normal in many countries.

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

Yes, just a single line in Bill C-75 mentions the repeal of Section 159 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, if you didn’t know what to look for, or didn’t have a copy handy. you wouldn’t know what it meant.

Think this over: Bill C-32 was met with public hostility over the proposal to lower the age of consent for anal sex. So that Bill is allowed to die, while the provision is slipped into Bill C-75.

  • Keep talking about (Islamic) terrorism, penalties
  • Let other degeneracy, perversions go ahead

The sleight-of-hand worked out as planned. While Canadians were rightly shocked at the prospect of having terrorism offences hybridized (available for either summary or indictable method for trial), instead of only the more serious indictable, this was allowed to pass. That way, the other items would get little to no scrutiny. And yes, this site is also guilty of the oversight.

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

These are the areas of Bill C-75 which the media focused on. Certainly, they are very serious, and need to be addressed. These are the offences which are now “hybridized”, meaning they are eligible to be tried summarily.

  • Section 52: Sabotage
  • Section 65: Rioting
  • Section 69: Neglect by peace officer
  • Section 82: Possession of explosives
  • Section 83.02: Providing property for certain purposes
  • Section 83.03: Making services/property available for terrorism
  • Section 83.04: Using property for terrorism purposes
  • Section 83.18(1): Participation in terrorist activity
  • Section 83.181: Leaving Canada to participate in terrorism
  • Section 83.23(1): Concealing who carried out terrorism
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14

Now let’s briefly address some of the more disturbing aspects of Bill C-75 that weren’t covered by the mainstream or alternative media.

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

See what’s going on here? The focus is on some of the more blatant and obvious crimes, and how they have become “hybridized” offences. Yet some extremely serious ones are mostly ignored, despite the same thing happening to them.

In later sections of the bill, it discusses access to justice, and reducing the standards for accused people to be released until trial.

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

Corrupting children
172 (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

172 (1) Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and by doing so endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 6]

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Yes, corrupting children, and committing indecent acts against children now, thanks to the Trudeau Government, are eligible to be tried summarily. How exactly does this help protect children? The punishments for doing these crimes are reduced.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.

Also worth noting is that Section 181 (spreading fake news to create mischief) has been repealed as a criminal offence.

Marginal note:
Dead body
182 Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178

note:
Dead body
182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 1822019, c. 25, s. 63

Interfering with a dead body, even indecent interference, or indignity to a corpse can now be tried summarily.

Neglect to obtain assistance in child-birth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result thereof or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result thereof, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 226

Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result of the failure or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result of the failure, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 242 2019, c. 25, s. 82

Yes, it’s no big deal if you don’t bother to call for help when about to give birth. If the child dies, covering it up doesn’t seem very important either. What a twisted direction to be going.

Concealing body of child
243 Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 227

Concealing body of child
243 Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 243 2019, c. 25, s. 82

As for those people wanting to participate in multiple marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, or other such abominations, guess what? Lesser penalties are heading your way.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage; or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in paragraph (a).

Polygamy typically involves one man having several wives. It opens the door to abuse and exploitation, since the “wives” generally don’t have the same rights as the man. Of course, there is nothing to say that these are child marriages and/or forced marriages.

Forced marriage
293.1 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9.

Forced marriage
293.1 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115.

Forced marriage amounts to sex slavery. Typically, it is a very young girl forced to “marry” a much, MUCH older man. What sane person would make this eligible to be tried as a summary offence? This crosses the line for any so-called cultural accommodations and crosses into (child) exploitation.

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115

Given that very young children are not able to give informed consent, would this not be the same exploitation and child sex slavery as addressed above?



Marginal note:
Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 29

Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 292019, c. 25, s. 116.

Why would someone pretend to solemnize a marriage? It could be because the terms of the marriage would not be accepted in everyday society, such as child marriages, or forced marriages.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So burning down your place of business or home (and endangering the public) could possibly be tried summarily. Just make sure that you set the fire for the insurance money.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Smuggling children across the border, or providing children for these marriages could be considered organized crime. Perhaps that is why they were included in the hybridization list.

And of course, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was addressed in previous sections. There are many provisions in Bill C-75 that were not addressed. The likely reason was that the terrorism changes made were so shocking.

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

CanadianAllianceForSexWorkLawReform-e
The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform made a submission for the Bill C-75 hearings, asking for restrictions to sex work be removed. The rationale being that having portions of the “job” that were not fully legal endangered the workers and limited their access to courts and the police if need be.

UNICEFCanada-e
UNICEF also made a submission in the hearings. They claim that their mandate is to advocate for the well being of all children. That extends to both child victims of crime, and child criminals. While the intent may be good, foreign institutions should not be trying to influence Canadian law.

CanadianCentreForGenderSexualDiversity-e
The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity made a submission, including a list of items they thought should have been included in Bill C-75.
1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
4-Bill C-75 fails to properly define marginalized person

VancouverRapeReliefAndWomensShelter-e
The Vancouver Rape Relief wrote in support of the “reverse-onus” burden in domestic violence cases, where men would have to show that they deserve bail. However, the group laments that “rich white men” will be able to get off the hook, while men of colour will more often remain locked up. Oh, intersectionality at its finest.

CanadianCentreForChildProtection-e
The Canadian Center for Child Protection spoke very critically about certain changes which would weaken the penalties for abduction of children and forced marriages. A well written piece, but pretty sad that these facts need to be stated.

It was also addressed in the previous review that changes were being made to (for the most part) make it easier for accused criminals to get out on bail and to remain out even when breaching conditions. Crime just isn’t something the government takes seriously.

6. Liberals All Voted For This

All Liberal MPs voted for Bill C-75. Every single one who was in the House of Commons. They all voted for a Bill that reduces the criminal penalties for terrorism offences, and crimes against children. Regardless of whether the vote was whipped (it probably was), MPs in the government should have been standing up against this.

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

The review from 2018 seems to be incomplete, so a follow up was called for. While terrorism related charged were prominent in the bill, there were many other things that needed to be addressed as well.

Slipping in content from Bill C-32 (lowering the age of consent for anal sex) was just one thing that wasn’t discussed in the media. Seems that when Bill C-32 died, the discussion died as well. A cynic might wonder if the exclusive focus on the terrorism elements was deliberate.

(a) Focus on the reduced penalties for terrorism offences
(b) Ignore the degeneracy, child exploitation aspects of the bill

In watering down penalties in this manner, the Trudeau Government puts people — particularly children — in danger. It is difficult to comprehend how this makes children safer when the potential punishments for crimes against children are reduced.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the Trudeau Government is making it more likely that children will continue to be harmed. After all, Bill C-75 reduces potential penalties for serious crimes against children.

Hopefully this gives a more rounded summary of Bill C-75 than the what last article did.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-75-watering-down-penalties-for-terrorism-rioting-weapons/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8587634
(3) http://archive.is/p1AqH
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(5) http://archive.is/QYxr0
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) http://archive.is/efXwo

Posted on

ConquerCovid19, The IDRF, And Other “Covid” Groups Springing Up

This article has two parts. The first is a look into the group, ConquerCovid19. This group has been supplying medical equipment (in particular PPE) over the last while to help fight this “coronavirus crisis” that we are repeatedly told exists. They have also been supplying politicians with their motivational T-shirts to wear for public announcements. Doug Ford is perhaps the most notable example.

CC19 has partnered with a charity called the International Development and Relief Foundation (IDRF), an Islamic charity formed in 1988, that has some interesting financials.

The second part concerns the sudden rise of other CV groups. When there is an (alleged) pandemic, is your first reaction to form a corporation in order to make money off of it? Well, at least 5 new Federal Non-Profits came to be formed in Canada in the last 2 months. They are so new in fact that it doesn’t look like they even have businesses or websites up yet.

  • Covid Care Collective
  • Covid Solutions Inc.
  • Covid-19 Legal Resource Center
  • Mr. Surprise Covid-19 Foundation
  • Outremont Covid-19 Help Foundation

There may very well be more, but these are the ones listed with Corporations Canada in recent postings. Very little is available on these companies. One has to ask though: are they hoping that this situation continues indefinitely? Are they hoping to cash in on the situation?

Note: there is one more listing under “covid” in the Corporations Canada website, but it appears to be an unrelated, now defunct company.

1. ConquerCovid19.ca Group

TORONTO — A Greater Toronto Area based volunteer group called “Conquer COVID-19” is helping fill a void on urgently needed medical supplies at hospital and clinics.

Dr. Kashif Prizada, an emergency room doctor in Toronto and member of Conquer COVID-19, told CTV News Toronto Sunday that he’s seeing more coronavirus patients every day. He said that more of the patients are on ventilators and medical staff need more equipment.

For example, Prizada said that instead of changing a mask after each patient, staff are asked to use about two a day.

Conquer COVID-19 said it’s already coordinating the supply of ventilators, masks, gloves and baby monitors, which may conserve the need for personal protective equipment like gowns.

“We want to make sure the patients are being seen and taken care of appropriately so baby monitors would allow physicians and nurses to communicate with patients in isolation while maintaining their own health,” said Yusuf Ahmed, a second-year medical student at the University of Toronto and working with Conquer COVID-19.

According to this group, it is not producing or manufacturing any medical equipment of personal protective equipment. Instead, it is trying to coordinate donations from people who do make it, and who have some in stock.

On the website the group announces it is selling merchandise and giving the profits to health care workers. Given how new the group is, however, it doesn’t seem like any sort of auditing or inspection has been done, and the group is not a registered charity. We will have to see what come out of this.

About Us
Conquer COVID-19 is comprised of physicians, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and other volunteers who are working together to ensure frontline workers responsible for the health and wellbeing of Canadians have access to masks, gloves, and other supplies that are essential in treating patients and minimizing the spread of the virus.

It seems that this group’s primary goal is getting PPE to healthcare workers. Seems harmless enough, but is it a concern that Huawei is one of the organizations supporting it?

2. ConquerCorona Partners With IDRF

According to its news release, the ConquerCovid group has partnered with the International Development and Relief Foundation (IDRF). A look at its recent tax filings (available free at Revenue Canada) indicates that the charity consistently makes more than it spends. This is even after salaries and expenses are factored in.

Period Ends Revenue Total Expenses Difference
2015 $4,756,469 $4,566,518 $189,951
2016 $5,142,039 $4,371,319 $770,720
2017 $4,815,600 $4,207,947 $607,653
2018 $5,442,063 $5,232,886 $209,177
2019 $7,979,701 $5,370,929 $2,608,772
TOTALS $28,135,872 $23,749,599 4,386,273

Direct links: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

This Islamic charity that ConquerCovid19 has partnered with has come out ahead to the tune of nearly $4.4 million over the last 5 years, according to filings with the Canada Revenue Agency. They are partnering with a group that only formed 3 weeks earlier, whose members (several of them) follow Bill Gates.

But sure, nothing to see here, right Doug Ford?

3. About The Group’s Members

The group ConquerCovid19 claims to be made up of volunteers. On the surface this looks fine, but questions get raised when you take a closer look at these volunteers.

Dr. Ruby Alvi is one of the leaders of the ConquerCovid group. And according to her LinkedIn page, she also is a follower of Bill Gates.

Yusuf Ahmed is also one of the leaders of the ConquerCovid group. And he follows the open borders group, Amnesty International. AI is funded by the Russian Zionist Benenson family.

Khadija Cajee is following Richard Branson, Welcome South Africa, and the Canadian Council of Africa. She also co-founded the group “No Fly List Kids”, which is devoted to getting names removed from the No Fly List.

Fatema Dada works for the Ontario Attorney General’s Office. She follows Lawyers Without Borders, Amnesty International, and several Muslim groups online.

Chris Houston, according to his LinkedIn page, is following the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society (George Soros’ organization), USAID, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and several other global groups.

Nadia Malik has spent almost a decade at Bombardier. That is interesting, given how frequently the company gets taxpayer funded handouts. She is also following: Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Justin Trudeau, McKinsey, the World Economic Forum, and some others.

Kashif Pirzada is following Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. Also, he is a coroner, which makes the Covid charity and interesting choice to get involved with.

And here are a few more members of ConquerCovid, who are also following Bill Gates. Many, although not all are following his LinkedIn page.

Beyond the ConquerCovid group, it’s worth noting that several other “corporations” have been started up in the last while, all supposedly dealing with the virus. Although they have filings with Corporations Canada, they don’t seem to have done much yet.

These could be totally legit companies, but they could also be shell corporations. There isn’t enough information available to tell yet.

4. Covid Care Collective


covid.care.collective.director.list
covid.care.collective.articles.of.incorporation

This “new” company seems to be hot off the presses. In fact, it was incorporated today, May 11, 2020. Doesn’t appear to have a website running.

5. Covid Solutions Inc.

covid.solutions.articles.of.incorporation
covid.solutions.list.of.directors

The articles of incorporation and list of directors were only finished on April 30, 2020, less than 2 weeks ago. It doesn’t appear that this company even has a website running.

6. Covid-19 Legal Resource Center

covid.19.legal.resource.articles.of.incorporation
covid.19.legal.resource.director.list

7. Mr. Surprise Covid-19 Foundation

covid.19.mr.surprise.articles.of.incorporation
covid.19.mr.surprise.list.of.directors

This corporation only came into existence April 20, 2020.

8. Outremont Covid-19 Help Foundation


covid.19.outremont.foundation.articles.of.incorporation
covid.19.outremont.foundation.list.of.directors

This “corporation” was founded on March 14, 2020, less than 2 months ago.

9. CV Bringing Out Business Opportunities

The coronavirus “pandemic” seems to be an opportunity for new business ventures, which is ironic considering how businesses have been shut down. ConquerCovid19 was formed just a month ago, and aims to be a middleman, getting supplies to health care workers. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is already shilling for their merchandise.

The sudden partnership between ConquerCovid19 and the IDRF is interesting. CC19 was only formed a matter of weeks ago, and IDRF is an extremely profitable Islamic charity.

As for these other five corporations, what happens with them? Their articles of incorporation were pretty sparse in details, so it’s unclear what they are actually formed to do. Of course, these are just the ones registered Federally that a search of “COVID” turned up. There may be more.

(1) https://nowtoronto.com/news/coronavirus-doug-ford-conservative-party-andrew-scheer/
(2) http://archive.is/46jhQ
(3) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/gta-group-helping-conquer-covid-19-by-getting-supplies-to-medical-staff-1.4873404
(4) http://archive.is/jxkaP
(5) https://www.conquercovid19.ca/
(6) http://archive.is/WSqCx
(7) https://conquercovid19.entripyshirts.com/
(8) http://archive.is/UMpvr
(9) https://www.conquercovid19.ca/meet-our-team/
(10) http://archive.is/hF7Ud
(11) https://idrf.com/
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ruby-alvi-86617347/
(13) http://archive.is/7pK30
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/yusuf-ahmed-119205137/
(15) http://archive.is/Rrll9
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kcajee/
(17) http://archive.is/STrLJ
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fatema-dada-662b862/
(19) http://archive.is/iWdzY
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrismhouston/
(21) http://archive.is/8fIfa
(22) https://www.linkedin.com/in/nadia-malik-58534b/
(23) http://archive.is/c8wLb
(24) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kashifpirzada/
(25) http://archive.is/1Duas

Posted on

Catherine McKenna: Co-Founder Of NGO, Canadian Lawyers Abroad

1. Important Links

(1) http://catherinemckenna.liberal.ca/biography/
(2) http://catherinemckenna.ca/site/2013/09/exciting-times-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(3) http://archive.is/DYoQg
(4) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/
(5) http://archive.is/fqUPW
(6) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/author/canadianlawyersabroad/
(7) http://archive.is/UOSKe
(8) https://leveljustice.org/news
(9) http://archive.is/zWgkW
(10) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/canadian-lawyers-abroad-goes-next-level-with-new-name-and-new-look/
(11) http://archive.is/OlXub

Some Posts Written By McKenna
(1) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/so-whats-up-with-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(2) http://archive.is/UdqBw
(3) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/is-law-school-a-losing-game-in-canada-who-knows/
(4) http://archive.is/GbQ7q
(5) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/revisiting-yet-again-the-question-of-what-to-do-with-articling/
(6) http://archive.is/A61RA
(7) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-1/
(8) http://archive.is/zzC2I
(9) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-2/
(10) http://archive.is/FwR2w
(11) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/were-failing-our-children/
(12) http://archive.is/6D4ky
(13) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/articling-and-the-2011-lsuc-bencher-election/
(14) http://archive.is/VBZ4U
(15) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/canadian-lawyers-abroads-rights-of-spring-the-lowdown/
(16) http://archive.is/enUho

2. Context For This Article

When a person steps into public office, such as being a Member of Parliament, it is expected that they will have no other associations or obligations that will interfere with this role. They are expected to have no conflict of interest. For Ottawa MP Catherine McKenna, however, that is not the case.

She co-founded an NGO called Canadian Lawyers Abroad in 2006, which was aimed at getting Canadian law graduates to take on international matters. McKenna remained a director of this organization until the day of the 2015 election.

What does this group (whatever its name is) actually do? Looking at its profile, under the name Level Justice, it seems to focus on social justice and indoctrination for aspiring lawyers. Think of it as a sort of brainwashing movement, promoting a more globalist, or internationalist approach.

It also operates a student internship, where law students and graduates take on work abroad. This amounts to a summer or so or volunteer work abroad, working for NGOs. An interesting situation: even while running for office, Catherine McKenna was a director at an NGO, which tried to get law students to go work for other NGOs abroad. The annual reports do list where people have gone, but more information would have been nice on the work they do.

But looking at the reports issued, it seemed that this global internship was not the biggest focus. More efforts were spent on local initiatives.

3. “Candidate” McKenna Stayed On CLA Board

Today was a big week in the history of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. On Monday, Brittany Twiss came on board as our new Executive Director. The torch had officially passed from Yasmin Shaker and me, the CLA co-founders, to the next generation!

It is bittersweet to be leaving as ED of CLA (although I will still be on the board). I realize how lucky I have been to work with so many passionate and committed lawyers and law students who live up to CLA’s motto of using law to improve lives. We are lucky to count among our boosters (and my mentors) amazing leaders in the legal community including Allan Rock and Nathalie Des Rosiers (who very kindly gave us our first office at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Bill Graham, Antonio Lamer, Ed Waitzer, Bob Rae, Greg Kane and Armand de Mestral. We also have thousands of law students who have come through our Student Chapter and Student Internship Programs who are now using their law degrees to build the rule of law and promote human rights in Canada and around the world.

McKenna remained on the Board of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, even though she was campaigning to become a Member of Parliament in the 2015 election. That page is from 2013, but it has to be asked: did McKenna remain on the Board after getting elected? Is she on the Board today? Is she using her position as an MP to push CLA’s agenda?

4. McKenna’s Posts On CLA Blog

About Catherine
I am a Co-Founder, former Executive Director and current Board Member of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. I am Executive Director of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto.

Here, Catherine McKenna describes in broad strokes what her organization is, and what it’s goals are. Again, she remained a board member while running for public office, which is a huge conflict of interest.

How? In two ways. First, we run a Student Program that brings together law students from across the country who are passionate about using their law degree to make positive changes around the world. CLA provides a forum for discussion and debate and, through our Summer Internship Program, we offer students the possibility of gaining practical experience with our amazing partners in developing countries and Canada’s north.

Second, we develop innovative projects with our partners that will lead to positive, long-term changes in their communities. For example, we’re helping the KNUST Faculty of Law in Ghana set up a university legal clinic. University legal clinics have been a very successful model in Canada and Canadian lawyers and law students are well-placed to provide assistance. This project will give KNUST law students practical, real-life training and provide marginalized groups, in particular women and youth, access to desperately needed legal information and services. In the long-term, by promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights, this project will help reduce poverty and promote economic development in Ghana. We plan on replicating this pilot project with other partners around the world.

This all sounds great, but when you are an elected MP in Ottawa (or any riding) your allegiance is to the people of that riding. Remaining part of this organization makes McKenna look compromised.

In another article, McKenna outlines how law school is becoming a losing game, as there are more graduates than positions in articling available. She actually has a valid point, and the situation in the United States is much worse. Could this be a way of swaying more lawyers to her cause?

5. CDN Lawyers Abroad A.K.A. Level Justice

In September 2015, Canadian Lawyers Abroad underwent a name change and overhauled its website. However, its indoctrination agenda seems to be pretty much the same, so the changes are more cosmetic.

Level.Justice.Change.Of.Name
Level.Justice.2.Certificate.Of.Continuance.
Level.Justice.3.Bylaws.For.Organization
Level.Justice.4.Director.List.In.2014
Level.Justice.5.Change.Of.Corporate.Address
Level.Justice.6.Director.Change.October.2015.McKenna.Out

Looking at the corporate documents, it seems that Canadian Lawyers Abroad was renamed to LEVEL. CHANGING LIVES THROUGH LAW. It also looks like Catherine McKenna remained a Director at the organization until October 19, 2015. This was the day of the election which put her into office. Since there is no time listed, she may have only resigned after having won her seat.

6. CLA/Level Is Registered Charity

This is a bit confusing. McKenna stepped down as Executive Director in 2013. So, was she not considered a Director (according to the CRA) until this happened?

For Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $82,191.00 (48.34%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $81,039.00 (47.66%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $6,788.00 (3.99%)
Total revenue: $170,018.00

Charitable programs $97,086.00 (79.87%)
Management and administration $0.00 (0.00%)
Fundraising $8,868.00 (7.30%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $15,597.00 (12.83%)
Total expenses: $121,551.00

Professional and consulting fees
$61,966.00

Note: There is no compensation listed for employees

For Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $10,600.00 (7.54%)
Non-receipted donations $78,864.00 (56.07%)
Gifts from other registered charities $43,000.00 (30.57%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $8,200.00 (5.83%)
Total revenue: $140,664.00

Charitable programs $116,887.00 (90.23%)
Management and administration $12,652.00 (9.77%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $129,539.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$72,746.00

Full-time employees (1)
Part-time employees (4)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,633.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2017
Receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $110,300.00 (85.31%)
Gifts from other registered charities $18,992.00 (14.69%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $0.00 (0.00%)
Total revenue: $129,292.00

Expenses are listed as $163,006

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$96,529.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$5,861.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (2)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2018
Receipted donations $6,790.00 (1.71%)
Non-receipted donations $260,938.00 (65.58%)
Gifts from other registered charities $130,131.00 (32.71%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $28.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $397,887.00

Charitable programs $288,133.00 (91.80%)
Management and administration $25,747.00 (8.20%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $313,880.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$220,568.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$12,006.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)

For Period Ending August 31, 2019
Receipted donations $10,000.00 (2.96%)
Non-receipted donations $156,492.00 (46.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $171,448.00 (50.73%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $25.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $337,965.00

Charitable programs $220,726.00 (89.76%)
Management and administration $25,171.00 (10.24%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $245,897.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$168,747.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$13,524.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

7. Little Info On Elections Canada Site

A quick search into the financing section of Elections Canada shows very little. In fact, as of the time of writing this, there are 21 donations total with McKenna’s name on them. Most are for a few hundred dollars. So McKenna hasn’t been getting large donations from various groups.

8. Global Internship Program

In summer 2016, Level placed 20 student interns with NGOs in Canada, the US, Ghana, Namibia, Kenya, Thailand, India and Bangladesh, where they gained practical human rights research and advocacy experience. While Level has made the difficult decision this year to shift its focus to local and remote internship opportunities, we are proud to have facilitated international internships for over 220 students since 2005. I would like to take this opportunity to thank  our amazing partners for their support of our student initiatives, and their commitment to making justice a reality for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Focused on an annual theme, Level’s Chapters organize community events, host conferences and panel discussions, and contribute research papers to an annual human rights journal. In 2016-17, our Chapters advanced awareness of women’s human rights both in Canada and abroad, and encouraged their peers to think critically about how they can use their budding legal skills to make a positive impact in their communities.

Through our Global Internship Program, 20 passionate and talented JD/LLB students spent the summer working for NGOs in Canada or overseas supporting grassroots efforts to increase access to justice and combat poverty, inequality and exploitation. Since 2005, over 220 students have advanced the mission of 45 organizations in 15 countries, while at the same time developing practical skills to advance their careers.

The quotes are from the annual 2016 report.
LJ.2014.annual.report
LJ.2015.annual.report
LJ.2016.annual.report
LJ.2018.annual.report

2014 through 2018 are available currently on the website.
On a serious note: one has to wonder how effective these students and new graduates would actually be. Not only would they have little to no experience in Canada, how could they contribute in countries where the culture and language are very different? How would they be able to operate in areas that might be highly suspicious of Westerners?

9. What This Group Does

From the looks of things, Canadian Lawyers Abroad, now called “Level Changing Lives Through The law”, or as “Level Justice”, runs a bunch of advocacy programs in Canada. The focus is on a social justice approach on crime, law, and access to representation.

The group has a “global internship program” which encourages law students and/or law school graduates to go abroad working for NGOs of other organizations. While the places are listed, it would be nice to know more about what these aspiring lawyers are in fact doing.

However, it appears that the bulk of the work has to do with domestic initiatives within Canada. That may explain the name change, as “Canadian Lawyers Abroad” left the impression that it was the bulk of their work.

Within Canada, it does seem to be focused on pitching the notion that poverty, racism and intolerance is what keeps people from getting access to justice. On the surface, this group seems to be noble and benevolent, though it views everything through the social justice lens.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress