Public Media Alliance, Brussels Declaration, Protecting Journalists & “Media Freedom”

The Public Media Alliance claims that harassment, threats, and violence towards journalists is a serious concern. This organization also thinks the media isn’t independent enough. While that is certainly true, it seems this NGO is less than sincere in what it states it supports.

For some even more Orwellian organizations, check this piece on: (a) Journalism Trust Initiative; (b) Trusted News Initiative; (c) Project Origin: and (d) The Trust Project. There’s also this article on the Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity.

So-called public service media, or PSM, refers to media outlets that are either run by, or heavily financed by the respective Governments. The PMA is quite blunt about this.

Financial models for public media organisations vary but an element of public funding is central. This is usually provided by either allocation from general government resources or via a general charge on users (licence fee). Public media organisations also supplement declining public resources with external revenue in order to maintain quality.

However, what will become clear is that the PMA doesn’t really advocate for a free and open media. Instead, it calls for media — and publicly funded ones — that operate within their own ideologies.

Within the PMA, there is a subgroup called the Global Task Force, or GTF.

The GTF claims its values are: access, accuracy, accountability, creativity, impartiality, independence and high standards of journalism. All these underpin an informed and healthy democracy. Many of these are under assault by various forces, both private and public.

It also says on its webpage that “public service media must develop a coordinated global response mechanism in order to defend and promote core values.” At face value, there is nothing that catches attention.

The Global Task Force exists to defend the values and the interests of Public Media.
The Global Task Force (GTF) was formed to develop a consensus and single, strong voice around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide. An industry led initiative, the GTF offers a perspective that spans countries, languages and cultures.

The 8 members of the “Global Task Force” have openly supported the Brussels Declaration, which they claim is a new global initiative to protect journalists and media freedom.

  • David Anderson, Managing Director, ABC (Australia)
  • Thomas Bellut, Director General, ZDF (Germany)
  • Delphine Ernotte Cunci, President & CEO, France Télévisions (France)
  • Tim Davie, Director General, BBC (United Kingdom)
  • Jim Mather, Chair of the Board, RNZ (New Zealand)
  • Hanna Stjärne, Director General, SVT (Sweden)
  • Catherine Tait, President & CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada, GTF Chair (Canada)
  • Yang Sung-dong, President & CEO, KBS (South Korea)

This is by no means the entire list who endorsed the Brussels Declaration. In fact, dozens of broadcasters, mainly publicly funded, have already signed on to it. These include:

  • Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) – BEL
  • Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) – BEL
  • Radio-Canada – CAN
  • CBC/Radio-Canada – CAN
  • France Télévisions – FRA
  • Radio France – FRA
  • British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – GBR
  • Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) – NLD
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – INT ORG
  • Public Media Alliance (PMA) – INT ORG
  • Les Médias Francophones Publics – INT ORG
  • Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) – DEU
  • Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) – DEU
  • International Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • European Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • Knowledge Network Corporation – INT ORG
  • Die Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) – CHE
  • Médias multiplateforme éducatif et culturel du Québec – CAN
  • Sveriges Utbildningsradio – SWE
  • France Médias Monde – FRA
  • Yleisradio – FIN
  • Sveriges Television (SVT) – SWE
  • Asia – Pacific Broadcasting Organisation – INT ORG
  • Lituanian National Television and Radio – LTU
  • TV5 Québec Canada – CAN
  • Televisión América Latina (TAL, Union of Latinamerican Public, Educational and Cutlural Broadcasters) – INT ORG
  • Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Costa Rica – CRI
  • Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) – KOR
  • Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – NZL
  • Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) – CHE
  • Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – BIH
  • Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) – AUT
  • Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) – PRT
  • NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) – JPN
  • Australian Broadcasting Corporation – AUS

That is quite the list, and it will surely grow in time.

Now, what is the Brussels Declaration? Primarily, it revolves around 5 points and commitments, claiming to want to protect a free and independent media worldwide.

[1] We improve the safety of journalists and other media staff
[2] We stand up for the independence of public broadcasters
[3] We encourage well-informed democratic debate
[4] We support a strong and diverse news media landscape
[5] We promote diversity, fairness and inclusion within our own organisation and in the society we serve

On the surface, there is nothing objectionable about any of this. In fact, these are great goals to work towards. However, when we see these principles applied in practice, and the rampant double standards, questions start to come up.

Each point could be an entire article by itself, but we will try to make this short, and more manageable. Considering the content of the Brussels Declaration, it’s fair to ask who wrote certain parts of Trudeau’s legislation over the last several years.

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

All journalists, crew members and media professionals need to be able to safely perform their duties. To that end, the signatories commit to providing the resources and support their employees need to protect themselves from physical violence and online harassment, while raising public awareness about the impact of those attacks on democracy.

No one supports having physical harm come to journalists. However, legitimate criticism (and trolling) is often conflated with violence or attacking. By doing this, it undermines efforts to hold reporters accountable for what they publish, especially things that are provably false.

That said, there is little to no coverage of protests in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Nor do mainstream outlets cover police brutality towards peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost as if there was a certain narrative to push.

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

The signatories commit to publicly condemning any attempt to undermine the independence of public service media — whether it’s through political pressure, financial threats or retribution, harassment or attacks against employees, or antimedia rhetoric. They also commit to improving understanding of the distinction between public and state broadcasters.

Public service media is independent? Watch 2:25 to 4:40 in particular, from this October 2020 video. Not a peep from any of the “journalists” there. Tam openly admits that: (a) journalists are asked to promote their agenda; (b) social media directs people to certain sites; (c) taking down content; (d) demonetizing content; and (c) manipulating the algorithm to bury certain content . However, not only are there no objections, but no one seems even the slightest bit surprised by this.

As for the independence of public service media, would it be too much to ask that it be made obvious that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major donor of the BBC? It’s not like this was difficult to find, or that it’s even much of a secret at this point.

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

In response to the global disinformation crisis, the signatories commit to providing trusted news and information, supporting fact-checking initiatives, boosting media literacy, and monitoring and removing hate speech from their platforms. They also pledge to call on social media companies and regulators to eradicate online hate on third-party platforms.

Calling on social media companies to remove “hate”, whatever that is? This raises the obvious question of who actually writes legislation in Parliament to call for such things.

Should the Government be financing the fact-check organizations that keep it in line? Moreover, should political operatives be running such groups? How is there real accountability when the media and the groups monitoring them are funded by the same people? Isn’t it just a dog-and-pony show at that point? It’s not independent if funding depends on pushing a narrative — regardless of who’s pushing it. While too numerous to name here, below are recent articles on exactly this subject.


4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

A diverse mix of public, community and private news media is fundamental to a strong news ecosystem and healthy democracy. Consequently, the signatories commit to collaborating with other domestic media outlets to protect local journalism — including sharing best practices on journalist safety and speaking with one voice on common challenges.

Quite interesting. Last April, CBC reported that Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, was openly considering laws to ban “misinformation” around the so-called pandemic. Although nothing seems to have happened (yet), this is absolutely chilling. Nonetheless, CBC seemed relatively uninterested, and only gave this a passing mention. Moreover, these outlets seem rather blase about the steady erosion of civil rights, and the ever changing narratives.

Also, how is it exactly that there is a diversity of sources, when they are all being financed to some degree by the Government? Just like the fact-checkers, the media itself is bought off. This extends to many smaller and “independent” news sources. See below.


5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

In order to uphold the ideals of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness that underpin democratic societies, the signatories commit to more accurately reflecting the diverse makeup and perspectives of the populations they serve, both in their programming and workforce — while also leading efforts to make their workplace inclusive for everyone.

This presumably means forced diversity. In the West, it means less whites, and in particular, less white men. And that’s pretty twisted, considering how few whites there are in general in the mainstream press.


In any event, it’s great news knowing that the CBC and some other outlets have signed the Brussels Declaration. It’s so relieving to know that strong, independent media will continue for the years to come.

Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t appear that the Public Media Alliance, the Global Task Force, or any of these groups actually care about having an independent media. This seems more like an effort to protect their dominance, while ignoring the assault on true reporters.


HireBIPOC, Replacing Whites In The Media Industry, All At Taxpayer Expense

HireBIPOC is a group that promotes the hiring of BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of colour) in the media. This includes pretty much everyone except whites, and that seems to be their only function.

All self-identified BIPOC working in all areas of the industry, across all experience/education levels, are encouraged to join.

Self-identified BIPOC? That sounds interesting.

The group claims to be run by volunteers, but this doesn’t mean that there is no cost to the public. The companies that they land jobs with are funded by taxpayers. But don’t worry, it’s all in the name of equality, or some such nonsense.

HireBIPOC’s objective is simple:
To eradicate systemic racism in the Canadian media landscape by

  • Shifting thinking and practices around hiring
  • Investing in the BIPOC community
  • Getting more BIPOC hired

Apparently, there is systemic racism in the Canadian media landscape. So, the solution seems to be to ensure more people of every background are hired, except for whites. That actually sounds really racist.

HireBIPOC will facilitate and increase BIPOC hiring in Canadian media & entertainment (television, film, digital) – whether Canadian or shot-in-Canada – in roles at all levels, across all areas of the industry – including production (above and below the line), behind the scenes, communications & marketing, and on-air.

HireBIPOC will be the most comprehensive roster of roles in the Canadian tv, film, and digital media and will encompass jobs in production as well as at media companies and arts organizations. The site will be available in both English and French. HireBIPOC’s category list will be extensive and include roles across all experience/education levels: writer, director, set decorator, wardrobe, production assistant, publicist, camera operator, post supervisor, social media manager, hair and makeup, accountant, on-air promotions, development executive, VFX/graphic designer, production executive… the list goes on and on.

We know a list is just a list unless it is used – consistently and across the industry. Canadian broadcasters Bell Media, CBC, Rogers, and Corus are HireBIPOC Foundational Partners and have committed to changing hiring practices within their respective organizations and the companies they work with. Specifically, they have committed to making the use of HireBIPOC a condition of greenlight.

HireBIPOC is operated by BIPOC TV & FILM, a volunteer-run advocacy group founded nearly a decade ago with deep roots in the BIPOC community and a track record for training and educational work, as well as building solidarity across industry organizations. BIPOC TV & FILM will also track how the site is being used in order to develop new programs and initiatives to address gaps.

You may notice on this site that there is no emphasis whatsoever on ensuring that SKILLED people are put into such positions. There’s no effort to ensure that the best people end up in such roles, regardless of background. A true meritocracy would be great. Instead, let’s hire based on race and skin colour.

One could argue that it’s private companies doing as they please, but that isn’t really true. Canada Media Fund, for example, is heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. It seems that they all are, and this has been the case for many years. The CBC gets around $1.5 billion from the public annually, and the City of Toronto is “supposed” to serve all residents of there.

Side note: Toronto is a “sanctuary city” and will allow illegal aliens to access services. Thank you Rob and Doug Ford. But it also supports explicitly racist hiring practices in the media. Taking a look at HireBIPOC’s partners, we see this:

Blue Ant Media Jul. 8, 2013 $45,153
Blue Ant Media Jul. 8, 2013 $286,950
Blue Ant Media Jul. 8, 2013 $290,808
Blue Ant Media Aug. 12, 2014 $44,833
Blue Ant Media Aug. 12, 2014 $302,691
Blue Ant Media Apr. 1, 2021 $350,000
Canadian Film Centre Apr. 30, 2018 $23,520
Canadian Film Centre Aug. 21, 2019 $3,395,000
Canadian Film Centre Apr. 29, 2019 $23,520
Canadian Film Centre May 19, 2020 $9,414
Canadian Film Centre Jun. 4, 2020 $600,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jul. 18, 2006 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Nov. 21, 2007 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 20, 2008 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 8, 2009 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2010 $134,146,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Mar. 25, 2011 $34,596,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Aug. 12, 2011 $99,550,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 8, 2012 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 2, 2013 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 5, 2014 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 22, 2015 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 13, 2016 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2017 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $16,960,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $157,793,710
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $222,896,077
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $22,000,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $26,365,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2021 $163,843,077
Canadian Media Producers Association Apr. 5, 2016 $156,704.
Canadian Media Producers Association Apr. 28, 2016 $50,600
Canadian Media Producers Association May 2, 2017 $136,120
Canadian Media Producers Association Jun. 1, 2018 $439,964
Canadian Media Producers Association Jun. 1, 2018 $504,964
Canadian Media Producers Association Apr. 12, 2019 $37,907
Canadian Media Producers Association Nov. 27, 2020 $138,300
Canadian Media Producers Association May 31, 2021 $99,750
Creative BC Oct. 20, 2014 $1,200,000
Creative BC Nov. 28, 2014 $1,199,992
Focus Media Arts Centre Jul. 6, 2020 $30,374
The Remix Project Jun. 11, 2018 $73,620
The Remix Project Jun. 11, 2018 $318,750
The Remix Project Apr. 1, 2021 $65,000
Rogers Media Inc. (Today’s Parent) Jul. 4, 2017 $374,592
Rogers Media Inc. (Châtelaine, French) Jul. 4, 2017 $567,295
Rogers Media Inc. (Chatelaine, English) Jul. 4, 2017 $1,176,978
Rogers Media Inc. (Maclean’s) Jul. 4, 2017 $1,492,069
Rogers Media Inc. (Today’s Parent) Apr. 1, 2018 $258,435
Rogers Media Inc. (Châtelaine, French) Apr. 1, 2018 $539,977
Rogers Media Inc. (Chatelaine, English) Apr. 1, 2018 $1,025,639
Rogers Media Inc. (Maclean’s) Apr. 1, 2018 $1,403,958
Telefilm Canada Jun. 8, 2007 $29,000,000
Telefilm Canada Nov. 14, 2007 $2,519,400
Telefilm Canada Jun. 10, 2009 $14,300,000
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Jun. 20, 2011 $50,000
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Jan. 31, 2013 $50,000
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Mar. 10, 2015 $50,000
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Oct. 27, 2016 $18,500
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Feb. 27, 2017 $60,000
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Aug. 1, 2017 $3,200
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Jul. 17, 2018 $7,532
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Apr. 11, 2019 $48,085
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival May 21, 2019 $8,860
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Apr. 1, 2020 $77,500
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival May 19, 2020 $7,840
Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival Sep. 15, 2020 $12,000

***With Rogers, those are just some more recent ones

HireBIPOC works with many different media outlets, all of whom are receiving some sort of subsidies. Keep in mind, the above list only refers to FEDERAL grants. One would think that this type of hiring policy would be condemned by a Government that claims to support diversity and equality. But the reality is, that it doesn’t.

It’s interesting that in a “white supremacist system”, the only group it’s legal to discriminate against is whites. Seems to be a really ineffective way of doing things.

In October 2020, the Sherbrooke Record wrote an article in support of these policies. They call it “being inclusive”, which is more than a bit dystopian. Just a thought, but perhaps that $12,000 subsidy they received 6 months earlier had something to do with it.

With all of that said, there seems to be a pretty easy way to game the system. There doesn’t appear to be any verification requirements. You can simply “identify” as a person of colour, in order to work with HireBIPOC. How odd it is to have a systemic racism problem (allegedly), where the only way to level the playing field is to identify as a non-white. Perhaps Rachel Dolezal was onto something.

On a final note, it’s unclear who actually runs HireBIPOC, at least from their website. Perhaps they’re trying to avoid the inevitable backlash. Also, their privacy policy is a bit unsettling. Read into that what you will.

Anyhow, take a look at Press Forward, another media collective that is committing to supporting the work of every group, except one.


Press Forward: Anti-White “Independent” Media Controlled And Funded By The Establishment

This is a media group called Press Forward. While it’s nice to see independent media covering events in Canada, even if we may ideologically disagree, this is not the case here. While presenting itself as a group of indy/alt media outlets, this is anything but.

Press Forward has a list of criteria for membership in their group. Most raise no eyebrows, and are in fact very reasonable. However, #8 catches attention for all the wrong reasons.

8. Members must have a publicly posted diversity, equity and inclusion policy in place and be willing to report publicly on the composition of their organization. If you do not have a policy or self-reporting process yet, Press Forward can provide a template and assistance.

While other requirements such as transparency, ethics policies, privacy policies, and trying to generate revenue are sensible, this last one is not. This isn’t a call to make decisions purely on merit, and to ignore traits like race, gender, age, or nationality. On the contrary, it’s a call to make decisions BASED ON those traits.

The site does go on to provide a template for their diversity, equity and inclusion policy. And wow, it’s quite a doozy.

We recognize that systemic discrimination based on age, class, cultural and/or linguistic background, ability, economic status, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation have contributed to an environment where the voices of many people in Canada aren’t uplifted. We are committed to reporting on stories that reflect the country’s diversity, as well as hiring and promoting journalists from a variety of underrepresented backgrounds.
Diversity: PUBLICATION will integrate equity principles into its decision-making processes. Equity and diversity will inform short-, mid- and long-term editorial planning, source cultivation, editing practices, art direction, etc. Our reporting sheds light on systemic barriers and historic challenges and will reference these issues when contextualizing breaking news.
Inclusiveness: As an employer, PUBLICATION will foster a welcoming, barrier-free environment, and build and nurture relationships with writers, editors, photographers and illustrators, as well as other consultants, from a variety of underrepresented groups.
Leadership: PUBLICATION’s leadership will strive to ensure it reflects the full diversity of Canada. This includes senior leadership, staff, freelancers, interns and volunteers, as well as featured sources, guests, speakers, etc.
Accountability: PUBLICATION will collect on the demographic makeup of the organization and will make a concerted effort to sensitively survey employees, freelancers and audiences on equity and diversity issues. PUBLICATION will then relay this information to the public via regular equity reports.

This is actually the template provided. To be part of Press Forward, it’s necessary to have a policy such as this, which comes across as anti-white. When they talk about factoring diversity into the hiring practices and stories covered, it means non white.

When they say organizations should reflect the full diversity of Canada, it means whites should be replaced. It also means that men, especially white men, are a thing of the past.

Truly independent media outlets don’t need to report on their racial or gender makeup. They don’t need to report the sexual habits of their members. Yet, Press Forward does. Strange, in a country that has all kinds of laws to enshrine equal rights, apparently minorities are oppressed.

This isn’t the hallmark of a collective of indy authors. This comes across as someone, like a Government, trying to implement social policy in how media outlets are composed, and what is written.

Now, about the groups themselves: what are the media outlets that are part of this organization? Where are they located?

  • Canada’s National Observer (Observer Media Group)
  • La Converse
  • The Coast Halifax Weekly
  • Committee Trawler (Halifax)
  • The Discourse
  • The Independent (Newfoundland & Labrador)
  • The Local (Toronto)
  • The Narwhal
  • New Canadian Media
  • Oakville News
  • The Sprawl (Calgary)
  • Sun Peaks Independent News
  • The Tyee
  • Village Media
  • West End Phoenix

And who is running Press Forward?

  • Emma Gilchrist, Chair, Editor-in-Chief, The Narwhal
  • Stacy Lee Kong, Vice-Chair, Deputy Editor, West End Phoenix
  • Jeremy Klaszus, Editor in Chief, The Sprawl
  • Brent Jolly, National News Media Council
  • Lela Savić, La Converse, Discourse Media
  • Karyn Pugliese, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University
  • Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights

Narwhal is Registered Journalism Organization with the Canada Revenue Agency. At the time of writing this, there are only 3, although over a hundred have applied. This means that Narwhal is entitled to special tax breaks most companies wouldn’t be able to get.

A quick search shows a number of recent grants by the Federal Government. Remember, Governments typically don’t hand out money to groups which are a potential threat. Would they give money to media outlets that will hold their feet to the fire?

Discourse Media Jul. 17, 2018 $1,520
Discourse Media Apr. 1, 2020 $161,795
Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
Journalists for Human Rights Oct. 11, 2019 $11,764,838
Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2018 $42,555
New Canadian Media May 1, 2019 $66,517
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2019 $66,800
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $9,471
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $69,300
New Canadian Media May 1, 2020 $31,900
New Canadian Media Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2020 $253,594
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2021 $100,000
Sprawl Media Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $30,258
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Jun. 5, 2020 $3,504
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $63,452
The Tyee Apr. 1, 2020 $360,469
Village Media Inc. Jul. 25, 2016 $88,000
Village Media Inc. May 1, 2018 $156,000
Village Media Inc. May 18, 2018 $140,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $190,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $260,000
West End Phoenix Apr. 1, 2020 $140,134

Canadians object to their money being spent on things they consider wasteful. Fair enough. But here, money is being given to organizations that put diversity above talent and results. Journalists are so restricted that they can get their work subsidized by the public.

This isn’t all of them of course. Still, several have received substantial amounts of money from Ottawa to promote their work. Press Forward is supported (financed in part) by the Trottier Family Foundation Foundation. More on them soon enough.

The Misinformation Project provides Canadian journalists and journalism students with digital investigation and media literacy training in online misinformation. The program is a continuation of JHR’s Combating Misinformation Project, which was funded in part by the Government of Canada in 2020. During this six month program, sixteen professional journalists will hold online training sessions for Canadian news organizations. These sessions cover the information landscape, responsible reporting and digital verification with the goal of helping participants integrate the skills into their daily reporting.
The Misinformation Project is funded by the McConnell Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation and the Rossy Family Foundation.
JHR partnered with First Draft News, a global leader in misinformation research and training, to implement the project.

JHR, Journalists for Human Rights, is running the “Misinformation Project“, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada. It gets additional funding from the Trottier Family Foundation, the McConnell Foundation, and the Rossy Family Foundation. Misinformation, of course, are things that contradict the official narrative.

What does this have to do with Press Forward? Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights, is on their Board of Directors.

In this earlier piece, it was laid out how various groups trying to “fight misinformation” were actually run by political operatives, and they were getting public money. JHR is led by Peter Donolo, longtime Liberal Party operative. He has been a handler for Jean Chretien, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau. This corruption crosses all parties.

JHR also runs another group called “Disinfowatch“, in conjunction with the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy.

Of course, this isn’t all the money that gets spent on this. Here are some more grants courtesy of the taxpayers. And you think it was going towards roads and schools.

In March 2020, Ryerson University announced that it would be conducting research into “misinformation”, how it spreads, and how to contain it. This would be funded by the Canadian Government. Strangely, this would be run out of the business school, and not the journalism school.

Karyn S. Pugliese, the Director at Press Forward, has been a reporter on CBC and CTV, and is a former reporter at Parliament Hill. An interesting addition to this group.

The Narwhal, which gets special tax breaks because of its status with the Canada Revenue Agency, is also a member of the organization Covering Climate Now. There are many partners in the group, including mainstream names.

CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.

By their own admission, CCNow wants to insert the climate change issue into everything, and use that to shift the culture. This isn’t media, it’s indoctrination. Just a thought, but this partnership may be why the CRA is so willing to grant the RJO status to Narwhal. One of their Directors is Alex Himelfarb, a former Privy Council Clerk.

Another Director is a member of the National News Media Council. They describe themselves as a “self-regulatory ethics body for the news media industry in Canada”. Now there’s nothing wrong with having different views, but this seems pretty inconsistent for Press Forward, which claims to be pushing independent journalism.

The Sprawl, based in Alberta, seems to be about the closest thing to independent. It is willing to take submissions from a broad group of people. However, it bleats the “diversity” drum to such a degree that everything else seems secondary. A quick look through recent articles show an incredibly leftwing streak.

This is hardly a complete rundown, however, it’s difficult to consider this group “independent” in any way, considering some of the people running it.

Instead of calling for stories based on talent, hard work, or creativity, all of this takes a backseat to “diversity and inclusion”. It seems done to deliberately drive up sentiments about being persecuted or taken advantage of. And we all know what the goal is.

It also has to be said, none of these outlets ask critical questions about the “pandemic” that has been going on for the last 18 months or so. Instead, the official narratives get promoted in their work. Perhaps that’s another reason for the subsidies.


Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.


Karlyn Borysenko Wants CRT Banned As Anti-White Agenda Is Too Obvious

On June 17, 2021, Karlyn Borysenko released a video, demanding that people stop calling critical race theory (CRT) an anti-white ideology. The entire video is well worth a watch. According to her biography, she is a “organizational psychologist and executive/performance coach.” Clearly, this is a smart person, which makes this claim so striking.


This doesn’t appear to be trolling. Borysenko it making the straight faced claim that this is the reality. Her major points are as follows:

  1. Borysenko claims that critical race theory isn’t about race, but about power. She says this is done to ultimate promote a communist utopia
  2. Borysenko claims that CRT makes people racist, despite previously statin that CRT isn’t about race. Some nice mental gymnastics
  3. Borysenko claims that CRT will create an actual white power movement in the United States.

Borysenko says that CRT came from the universities in the 1970s, and the idea is that racism exists everywhere. Consequently, it must be “sussed out”. While there is truth to this, she intentionally leaves out that the West has been continuously framed as a “white power” ideology, built on oppression. It doesn’t target any other group.

Also, the bulk of the people promoting the anti-white narrative aren’t white now, are they?

She repeats her contradictory claims that CRT is both: (a) not about race; and (b) can be used to target people of any race. How can an ideology that has nothing to do with race also be incredibly racist?

She claims that CRT can be directed against any group, including black and hispanic. Strange how there aren’t any claims of Mexican power in academia.

She also claims that an “actual white power movement” will result from pushing of CRT. Of course, she conflates violence with whites realizing that they are deliberately under attack. This attempt to steer the narrative has been done before, and she comes across as a less eloquent version of Jordan Peterson.

This dishonest take on CRT has an obvious interpretation: Borysenko doesn’t object to the anti-white agenda overall, but CRT is too overtly so. Can’t have the whites realizing that they are the targets. It’s a question of tactics here, not beliefs.

She makes the assertion that CRT is used to divide people while keeping a certain group in power. Okay, who’s in power? It probably isn’t whites, considering this is the only group it’s legal to discriminate against.

If Borysenko had simply condemned CRT, or claimed that things were being blown out of proportion, there would have been a lot less to question. However, she denies what is obvious, and claims that people organizing to resist it is an “actual white power movement”.

One has to wonder why she is being promoted as a “thought leader”, when many of the things she says are so obviously false.

Borysenko repeatedly makes strawman arguments. People calling CRT what it is are not trying to start any violent movement, they just want the truth told about this. However, she’s being intellectually dishonest when gaslighting such concerns.

Of course, if you start pointing out (with details) that CRT is anti-white, Borysenko has no problems blocking you. In fact, she seems to enjoy the idea of shutting out dissenting views. Her attitude and actions show that she has no interest in openly discussing what is obvious:

Critical race theory is anti-white, and used to condemn whites.

This isn’t just a one off. Borysenko’s YouTube channel is full of such content. On June 11, she did a stream on Robyn DiAngelo, author of “White Fragility”. DiAngelo isn’t white, but likes to condemn them anyway. Go through Borysenko’s work for more examples.


Aruna Khilanani, Anti-White Forensic Psychiatrist/Psychoanalyst, Doubles Down

Considering that Khilanani claims her words were taken out of context, it’s best to show the entire video here. She did a follow up interview after the initial talk.

On April 6, Aruna Khilanani, a forensic psychiatrist and psychoanalyst gave a talk at Yale University, where she spoke of violent fantasies about killing white people.

Statement from YSM
On April 6, a speaker who is not affiliated with Yale gave a Child Study Center Grand Rounds talk, with the provocative title “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” After the event, several faculty members expressed concern to the Yale School of Medicine’s Office of Academic and Professional Development and the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion about the content of the talk.

Based on these concerns, School of Medicine leaders, including Dean Brown and Deputy Dean Latimore, in consultation with the Chair of the Child Study Center, reviewed a recording of the talk and found the tone and content antithetical to the values of the school. Because Grand Rounds are typically posted online after the event and in consideration of Yale’s commitment to the right of free expression, school leaders further reviewed the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale.

In deciding whether to post the video, we weighed our grave concern about the extreme hostility, imagery of violence, and profanity expressed by the speaker against our commitment to freedom of expression. We ultimately decided to post the video with access limited to those who could have attended the talk — the members of the Yale community. To emphasize that the ideas expressed by the speaker conflict with the core values of Yale School of Medicine, we added the disclaimer: “This video contains profanity and imagery of violence. Yale School of Medicine expects the members of our community to speak respectfully to one another and to avoid the use of profanity as a matter of professionalism and acknowledgment of our common humanity. Yale School of Medicine does not condone imagery of violence or racism against any group.”

Instead of outright condemning this, Yale decided to post it, but limit the access of who could watch it. One can only imagine the outrage if the races had been reversed in this case. She now claims she was using metaphors, and wasn’t calling for overt violence.

Khilanani tries to spin this as some sort of social justice mindset, instead of overtly calling for violence. It comes across as incredibly condescending when she tries to “explain” it.

Khilanani has since doubled down, claiming both: (a) that she wasn’t quoted in full context; and (b) justifying how such views would be shaped. See the video at the top. She appeared on BNC news on June 16.

Apparently, white people got triggered (pardon the pun) for Khilanani saying that she fantasized about shooting whites in the head and walking away. She mocks whites for being offended by her words. Despite an initial impression, this woman doesn’t appear to be trolling. She seems to mean the anti-white hatred she spits out.

Also, if the West was built by whites oppressing and slaughtering others, is Khilanani not benefitting from this? Is she not enjoying a Western lifestyle created from the blood and bones of others? There’s no indication she’s about to abandon that life here and move elsewhere.

Treating everyone else just as people isn’t enough, in her mind.

This is racial hatred cloaked as psychological methods and research. Her choice of hosts for a “clarification” interview is interesting as well.