Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Ottawa To Ban Handgun Imports August 19th Using Regulatory Measure

The Canadian Government announced on August 5th that a national ban on the importation of handguns would take effect on the 19th, which is two weeks away. The full video is available from CPAC’s website.

There would supposedly be a small number of exceptions for the importation ban. However, it’s fair to assume that the retailers would no longer have access to new ones.

According to Ottawa, Bill C-21 would have 3 main effects:

  • National handgun “freeze”, meaning no more purchases, sales, or transfers
  • Red and yellow flag laws, to make seizures of firearms easier
  • “New tools” which apparently include stiffer sentences and new wiretapping powers

As with everything, the devil is in the details. For example, what new wiretapping powers would the police receive? They’re already allowed to apply for warrants to monitor suspected criminal activities.

Also, given this Administration’s pattern of reducing penalties for criminal offences, it seems unlikely that any changes here will be a deterrent against committing firearm offences.

Bill C-21 would be the so-called freeze on handgun movements, but apparently, the Federal Government doesn’t really want to wait for that. Banning imports would effectively shut down the market immediately. It’s troubling to see the democratic process subverted by just making an order.

Bill C-21 was introduced in the previous session, and died when the 2021 election was called. However, it’s been brought back, with some changes.

If handguns cannot be imported, sold, transferred, or gifted, how long until they are subjected to a mandatory buyback? After all, that’s what happening with what the Government calls “assault style” weapons.

(1) https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=38406422-ecdb-494b-8439-a1fbdeaf4e28
(2) https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/08/05/canada-temporary-ban-handgun-imports/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-ban-import-handguns-canada-1.6542492
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21

Posted on

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

This brief piece was inspired by a recent article that was forwarded here. Many are not aware of a growing divide within the larger movement of freedom supporters. Broadly speaking these can be classified as two factions:

(1) Those who are opposed to various medical martial law measures, including lockdowns, business closures, curfews, vaccine passports, masks, and other intrusions, but who otherwise support the concepts of viruses and vaccines; and

(2) Those who think that this virus — and viruses more broadly — are a work of fiction to push various social and political agendas.

Yes, there has been the argument that all of this is pointless, and distracts from the larger picture. However, it could also be said that demonstrating there’s no way to properly isolate a virus would by default render all freedom restrictions unnecessary.

This isn’t, of course, to suggest that everyone who believes in viruses (or a specific one) is a fraud or a shill. Many good people do.

That being said, the implications are huge if the second group turns out to be correct. Much of modern medicine would collapse if it was shown to be founded on false pretenses. Anyhow:

Without getting too much into the nitty gritty, tensions seem to be rising over efforts to debunk virology, and germ theory as a whole.

One of the more interesting items is “flaw #22” on the page, specifically the asymmetric burden of proof.

Asymmetrical burden of proof. Among other things, the bar for “proof” that they set for themselves is unreasonably low, while the bar that they set for everyone else is unreasonably high. And it appears that the only judges whom they will be willing to accept are themselves.

There’s more of course, but this is worth addressing. The argument seems to be that a thesis can only be debunked if a stronger and more credible one can take it’s place. That not how things work. Consider these examples:

  • In criminal court, a judge or jury never actually rules a defendant to be innocent. Either the prosecution has sufficiently proven culpability (guilty), or they they haven’t (not guilty). There’s no requirement for a defendant to prove someone else committed a crime, though it would certainly be beneficial.
  • When inspecting an automobile, it’s not really proven to be safe. Instead, the mechanic or other person searches for common sources of damage, or defective operation. If nothing is found, then the result comes back okay.
  • University students have likely seen hypothesis testing in statistics. The goal isn’t to prove what the mean or variance is, but rather to debunk the assumption. The methods may prove your belief (reject the asserted mean or variance), or there may be insufficient proof (fail to reject). That said, there’s no demand to provide alternative answers

In the linked article, Steve Kirsch laments there is a double standard. People wishing to argue the existence of a specific virus, or viruses in general, must provide concrete proof. However, someone who wants to debunk that only need to find sufficient errors, not formulate a better answer.

Common criticisms for virus isolation include: improper (or no) controls, lack of replicability, and adding things like monkey kidney cells or fetal bovine tissue.

A favourite on this site is the screwy definition of a “Covid death”, which stands any sense of honesty and integrity on its head. The rampant pharma connections are also difficult to ignore. Sometimes, it’s not science, but common sense that should cause people to second guess.

Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to the evidence required for “prove v.s. debunk”. And that’s quite okay.

(1) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/
(2) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/sam-baileys-very-disingenuous-settling
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/

Posted on

4 Years Later, No Constitution, Votes Or Governing Documents

On a more light hearted note today: it’s time to troll and trigger some people. The 4th anniversary since the PPC’s launch is fast approaching.

The “People’s Party” name and its communist implications are actually quite appropriate. There’s nothing about this organization that’s member controlled, or grassroots. There’s no democracy whatsoever, but then again, there’s really not a party.

One can speculate about Bernier’s motivations, but it’s been clear for a long time that this was never meant to be any sort of long lasting organization. It lacks even a basic structure.

This “party” was announced in the summer of 2018, and since then:
-No leadership race
-No votes on internal positions
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No other governing documents

Just a bit of advice: you probably shouldn’t say that drafting a constitution isn’t as difficult as negotiating Brexit. Sharon will take that as grounds to block you.

While lack of time may have been quasi valid for the 2019 race, it isn’t anymore. There’s simply no reason no to have proper structure in place by now. It’s also worth noting that this “party” can simply be shut down at any time, for no reason, without notice of any kind of mandate. It’s not like there’s a constitution to protect members.

The closest thing to a leadership race was an online “review” in late 2021. However, that’s not the same as holding a real contest. Also, it’s interesting to note there were allegedly some 27,000 members at the some. In 2019, there were over 41,000. Guess the numbers plummeted after the 2018 free passes expired.

Of course, it doesn’t help when dozens of the EDAs get shut down for not filing mandatory financial disclosures. There’s only so much good that “spin” can do.

As for the rant in the video, this is some crackhead logic at its finest. The idea seems to be that this party shouldn’t bother with a constitution because some other party has corrupt processes. Even if it’s true Scheer rigged the 2017 race (who knows?) that’s not a reason not to implement better safeguards here.

It’s sad because a lot of good people do get caught up in this. However, a hard reality check is required at some point.

Cultists have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why there’s no governing documents. Detractors (often CPC supporters) can’t really back up the “vote split” argument. The differences between CPC and LPC are cosmetic, so it doesn’t really matter who wins.

Also, should the “freedom movement” be led by a man who openly says that he recommends vaxxing his own father? Perhaps this isn’t controlled, but it does show cluelessness.

It’s been said that Liberals and Conservatives are 2 wings of the same bird. While true, that misses the bigger picture. Birds have legs, a tail, and a head, correct?

Anyhow, get out and vote harder!

(1) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1406969212757753859
(2) https://twitter.com/TransSplendor/status/1407309499308908558
(3) https://twitter.com/Babylon_Beaver/status/1407240058621497345
(4) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(5) https://www.bcrise.com/news/peoples-party-of-canada-leadership-review-results-are-in/

Posted on

Canadian Bill Of Rights: Why Bother With The Charter?

The Canadian Charter of Rights is regularly mocked and ridiculed because of its built-in defects. For examples, there’s Section 1, which allows for the “reasonable limitations” on those rights. However, it’s a bit baffling why the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be the default laws to rely on in major court cases, when it comes to Constitutional matters.

It makes little sense to launch any challenge when not using the strongest laws available. Is the goal to lose on purpose?

Section 1, in principle, seems fine, as it’s governed by the Oakes Test:

The Government must established something is “pressing and substantial.” While this is often not difficult, there’s a 3 part test that follows.

  • The remedy sought must be RATIONALLY connected to the purpose
  • The remedy sought must create a LIMITED IMPAIRMENT to society
  • The remedy sought must be PROPORTIONATE, and not overreaching

Sounds fine in principle. However, the last few years have shown that Judges are all too willing to bend the rules for some abstract sense of the “greater good”. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have this.

In fairness, it’s rather naive to trust laws and politicians. However, switching to the Bill would remove an obvious weakness.

Preamble
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I
Bill of Rights
Marginal note: Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
.
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
.
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:
.
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

The above sections are similar to the Charter in regards to: fundamental freedoms (Section 2); security of the person (Section 7); unreasonable search and seizure (Section 8); arbitrary detention (Sections 9 & 10); rights in criminal proceedings (Section 11); and cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12). Again, there’s no loophole which allows a court to simply suspend those rights.

There’s also no Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause, to allow Parliament to simply legislate blatantly unconstitutional things into law. However, the start of Part 2 may be seen as one.

There is also this at the end: “(3) The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.” Therefore, it may not apply to Provincial matters.

An interesting video from last year, from a lawyer with a different opinion.

Just something to think about.

(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/download-order-charter-bill/canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf
(3) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spvrch5mmnc

Posted on

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

You probably haven’t heard any concrete or specific updates from Notice Of Application concerning the lawsuit that was filed in April 2021. The most likely reason is that nothing has happened in the 15 months since the initial Notice of Application.

Why continue to follow up? A few reasons. First, knowing the truth about these publicly funded cases is important. After all, people have donated. Second, so that false hope isn’t attached to cases that will never go anywhere. Third, it’s not just the obvious people whose activities need to be monitored.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched.

Recently, a follow-up article showed that Vaccine Choice Canada’s lawsuits (both of them) had been dormant since 2020.

As for some detailed critiques of various challenges, see here and here for some of the more obvious flaws and defects. How does this happen, unless intentionally?

Another Notice Of Application was filed in April 2021, concerning masks on students in Ontario schools. The 2 documents are virtually identical, suggesting a cut-and-paste creation for the second. And likewise, there’s no activity going on, nor anything in the foreseeable future.

Again, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. No movement at all since Statement of Claim filed.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

There had been claims floating around starting in 2021 about affidavits of evidence that totaled in the thousands of pages. Problem is: if they actually exist, they haven’t been filed anywhere. One possible explanation is that this was deliberate deception to soothe over the concerns of donors with the lack of record activity.

Apparently a new suit has been filed in Federal Court. (Archive is here). While not written well, it’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other Claims. It’s only been a month, so too soon to determine where that goes. However, if recent history is any indication, it will likely sit for months or years with no activity.

To readers who have donated to these “lawsuits”: you may want to seriously consider demanding a refund. It seems very unlikely that this is what you thought was really going on.

Posted on

Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

An argument that doesn’t seem to be brought up (at least in Canadian circles) is lockdown measures are illegal for another reason: they violate the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Now, there is a provision that makes this (largely) null and void, but it’s still interesting to think about.

Of course, this doesn’t seem to apply when the state is the one taking the hostages. There’s a weasel clause that makes state-sanctioned hostage taking okay. One would think that international bodies facilitating hostage taking would make it apply.

Anyhow, let’s take a brief look through the document:

Article 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
(a) attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
(b) participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

One would think that detaining citizens at airports for refusing the nasal rape test (for a non-existent virus) counts. Does threatening people with financially crippling fines for not complying with arbitrary or inconsistent rules qualify?

What about forcibly sending people to quarantine camps? Or imposing de-facto house arrest for a period of time, as demanded by public health?

How about being threatened with the loss of one’s livelihood for not wanting to take an unknown experimental concoction?

Article 3
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure.
(2) If any object which the offender has obtained as a result of the taking of hostages comes into the custody of a State Party, that State Party shall return it as soon as possible to the hostage or the third party referred to in article 1, as the case may be, or to the appropriate authorities thereof.

A country has an obligation under this agreement to secure the release of foreigners held hostage in another one. However, that doesn’t apply to domestic hostages.

Article 4
States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in article 1, particularly by:
.
(a) taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their ter­ritories, including measures to prohibit in their territories illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of acts of taking of hostages;
(b) exchanging information and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.

Based on this alone, the Public Health Agency of Canada should be shut down. It encourages, instigates, organizes and engages in acts of hostage taking via “public health orders”.

Article 7
The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States con­cerned and the international intergovernmental organizations concerned.

Article 8
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.
(2) Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connexion with any of the offences set forth in article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings, including enjoyment of all the rights and guarantees provided by the law of the State in the territory of which he is present.

Considering that these measures are instigated by supra-national bodies, would we not be able to extradite members of W.H.O. here in order to prosecute for hostage taking?

Article 13
This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the hostage and the alleged offender are nationals of that State and the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State.

The U.N. states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and secu­rity of person, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the In­ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, but this only seems to apply across borders. Abusing rights domestically doesn’t qualify.

In other words, a foreigner in Canada — even illegally — would theoretically have some recourse here. However, a Canadian citizen would not.

Article 14
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as justifying the violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of a State in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.

Logically, a country wouldn’t be able to carry out hostage taking under the guise of political independence. But when it’s the U.N. or W.H.O. behind it, then perhaps the rules don’t matter. That being said, look at Article 13, at how that loophole makes the document worthless.

Of course, the Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations, PHAC is just a branch of WHO, and originally Health Canada was meant for population control measures.

In the end, we have foreign bodies writing laws which effectively hold us hostage. There’s a treaty against taking hostages, but it doesn’t apply if done domestically. And this loophole bypasses punishment by having Federal, Provincial, and some Municipal authorities do their bidding.

(1) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?lcid=1033&id=104001&t=637936622752983920
(3) https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1979%20International%20Convention%20against%20the%20Taking%20of%20Hostages.pdf