CV #17(D): Dr. Michael Warner’s Financial Interests In Prolonging The “Pandemic”

Dr. Michael Warner of Toronto is constantly giving media appearances, demanding more lockdowns and more restrictions. Just a few examples are here and here. Even a year later he still advocates for having basic freedoms stripped in the name of “safety”. Now, is this just his professional, medical opinion? Or does he have other reasons for supporting such draconian measures?

This will sound petty, but Warner has a creepy demeanor, which comes across as MK Ultra. Beyond that, he has consistently demanded more and more restrictions be imposed on the public. The mainstream “news” outlets haven’t seen fit to really challenge him on anything he says.

Credit where it’s due: Stormhaven recently published a piece exposing the rampant conflicts of interest that Michael Warner has in promoting lockdowns and vaccines. Hopefully, this article can expand on that.

Despite Warner’s frequent visits to the Canadian media circuit, and in spite of his constant alarming tone, his other business interests are not discussed. He is only referred to as a doctor at Michael Garron Hospital. Either the Canadian media does no research, or they are intentionally not disclosing his other business ventures. Not sure which, but both options are bad.

Michael Warner On CBC, March 21, 2020
Michael Warner On CBC, March 23, 2020
Michael Warner, April 3, 2021
Background Information From Stormhaven
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelwarnermdmba
https://archive.is/WI06K
https://www.linkedin.com/company/ontariohealth/
https://archive.is/17Zmb
https://www.advisorymd.com/
https://www.pwc.com/
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/nine-u-t-researchers-receive-federal-grants-covid-19-projects
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-receive-federal-grants-covid-19-modelling-projects
https://healthydebate.ca/2016/07/topic/doctor-apps/
https://archive.is/dmNbb
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/03/prweb13287286.htm
https://archive.is/8gTxX
https://www.owler.com/news/askthedoctor
https://twitter.com/askthedr
https://www.askthedoctor.com/
https://www.askthedoctorfoundation.org/ppe
https://theppedrive.com/
https://betakit.com/ask-the-doctor-acquires-sehat-indias-largest-health-platform/
https://vator.tv/news/2012-01-05-askthedoctor-and-nih-partner-for-ai-medical-research

Michael Warner is a practicing intensivist and Medical Director of Critical Care at the Michael Garron Hospital. He is a Lecturer at the University of Toronto and educates residents on the financial aspects of transitioning to practice. In 2018, he won the Excellence in Community-Based Teaching award for the best teacher among all U of T community-based teaching hospitals. More recently, he founded thePPEdrive.com and has become a trusted physician voice in the media helping Canadians navigate the COVID-19 pandemic.
.
A graduate of Queen’s University School of Medicine, Dr. Warner trained in internal medicine and critical care at the University of Toronto. To nurture his interest in business, he completed the full-time MBA program at the Rotman School of Management.
.
As a respected clinician and entrepreneur, Dr. Warner has successfully combined his interests in business and medicine. He served as the Medical Director of Best Doctors Canada and worked domestically and internationally as a healthcare consultant for PwC. He also served as Chief Medical Officer of a virtual care company and has a growing interest in coordinating real estate investment opportunities for physicians.
.
In 2016 Dr. Warner started AdvisoryMD. He provides career coaching and personal finance education to physicians clients. For corporate clients he offers clinically informed business advice to companies ranging from healthcare start-up to private equity firm.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having multiples sources of income. However, the problems start to creep in when interests in one (financial or otherwise), collide with another. While Warner’s patients, and society as a whole would likely benefit from ending this martial law, his other businesses may not.

From April 2014 to October 2016, Warner was a consultant with Pricewaterhouse Coopers. One of the areas this company focuses on is transforming the health care sector by increasing the size and scope of virtual care available. Interesting that their former representative now advocates for the sorts of measures that would ensure their growth.

Warner has also moonlighted as a lecturer at the University of Toronto since 2011. Nothing particularly insidious about that. However, it’s worth noting that 9 researchers from UofT got collectively some $6 million to do coronavirus modelling in March 2020. Even more money was handed out in April 2021, despite the awful job done previously for the modelling.

In both his ABOUT section of his LinkedIn page and advisorymd.com site, Warner states that he served as Chief Medical Officer of a virtual care company, but does not identify the company. He also doesn’t make it clear if he is still with them in any capacity. It’s not AdvisoryMD, since he lists that separately. Strange, considering he seems to have no issue with naming other organizations he’s affiliated with.

Spoiler: It’s https://www.askthedoctor.com

This lack of system support is one reason Ask The Doctor decided not to enter the market of offering live access to doctors. The Toronto-based company has doctors answer patient questions within one hour for a fee, and has answered more than 5 million questions worldwide. Patients can also ask doctors on the site for a second opinion, uploading documents such as CT scans or pathology reports along with their self-reported descriptions of their medical history.

The company was almost ready to get into the business of providing virtual and home doctors visits before deciding at the last minute to pull out. “We leased two Teslas, we had decals on them, we created our Android app, we had hired the physicians and we had 100 companies signed up,” says Michael Warner, chief medical officer of Ask The Doctor and a physician at Toronto’s Michael Garron Hospital.

But they decided not to move forward because they felt that the market had already become dominated by some major US players such as Doctor on Demand, and because e-consultations weren’t covered by many provinces. Instead, they’re sticking with their specialty, health advice without the ability to formally diagnose problems, write prescriptions or order tests. “We know that one-quarter to one-third of visits to doctors are for doctors to talk to patients about their medical problems, to explain something, review something,” Warner says. “Helping people understand what’s going on in their body is an important part of primary care.”

One would think that Warner’s other role would be more obvious, given his high profile nature over the last year. But this took some digging.

In a now deleted article, Michael Warner was set to become the head the virtual health company “Ask The Doctor” as Chief Medical Officer of Canadian Operations. There is also a mention in the March 21, 2016 entry on Owler. Of course, as lockdowns and free movement continue to be restricted, the value in virtual health care will grow. As such, it would be AGAINST Warner’s business interests to advocate for a full reopening.

Ask The Doctor does have a Twitter account going back to 2009. However, all but 1 tweet prior to March 2020 has been removed.

Warner states he worked (or works) for a virtual care company, but does not name it. The website does not list him anywhere, despite his high profile, and the above articles are some of the very few that mention him. Does he not want people knowing his ties with the Ask The Doctor Foundation?

Warner’s hospital, the Michael Garron Hospital (formerly Toronto East General) started the PPE drive in the Spring of 2020, asking for donations of surplus equipment. Ask The Doctor Foundation started one around the same time. Whose idea was it?

Ask The Doctor also uses the World War III rhetoric on its website, wording Warner has employed several times. Odd they are both so hyperbolic if there is no connection.

For the curious minded, copies of some of ATD Health Network’s corporate filings are available to read. However, they aren’t all that exciting.

ATD Health Network 01 Amendment
ATD Health Network 02 Annual Return
ATD Health Network 03 Annual Return 2018
ATD Health Network 04 Annual Return 2019
ATD Health Network 05 Annual Return 2017
ATD Health Network 06 Annual Return 2021
ATD Health Network 07 Annual Return 2020
ATD Health Network 08 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 09 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 10 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 11 Directors 2018
ATD Health Network 12 Dissolution
ATD Health Network 13 Dissolution 2014
ATD Health Network 14 Registered Board
ATD Health Network 15 Revival

In October 2015, Ask The Doctor acquired Sehat, the largest health platform in India. In November, they bought Patients Connected Ltd. as well. (Stormhaven erred in stating these were recent). In 2012, ATD partnered with the National Institute of Health to advance AI medical research.Without going too deep into it, Ask The Doctor is huge.

Warner lists his professional interests — except Ask The Doctor — which is bizarre. Also, has he cut ties with them, or is he still affiliated? Is he still their Chief Medical Officer?

With all of this in mind, there are 2 questions that need to be asked:
(a) Why does Michael Warner REALLY support continuous lockdowns?
(b) How come he is never challenged by the mainstream media?

CV #66(E): Ontario Inserts, Then Removes Protection Against “No Jab, No Job” By Employers

Worker rights are always important, especially if employers want to mandate they take experimental, unapproved gene replacement therapy. But what does the Ontario Government have to say?

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228
https://archive.is/pZoao (May 29, 2020)
https://files.ontario.ca/books/ontariogazette_153-24.pdf
Ontario Gazette June 13 Page 59 ESA Protections
https://archive.is/A03GF (March 2, 2021)
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228 (as of today)
https://archive.is/6atpm (as of today)

Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

The Infectious Disease Emergency Leave Provisions of the Employment Standards Act came into effect in May 2020. They were written up to be retroactive to January 2020. Sounds reasonable enough.

Now, this portion of the Ontario Employment Standards Act has undergone revision, several times. That being said, there is one particularly interesting provision. Specifically: protections were put in, then removed, for workers who don’t want to receive the “vaccine”.

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
Employees can take infectious disease emergency leave if they will not be performing the duties of their position because of any of the following reasons:
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
Examples include where the employer:
(a) is concerned that employees who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine may expose others in the workplace to COVID-19 and tells them not to come to work until they have been vaccinated
(b) directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
.
Examples include where the employer directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

The top quote is how the March 2, 2021, and the lower quote is how the law currently reads. The April 2021 update keeps the provision for international travel, but removes the protection for workers who don’t want to be vaccinated.

Now, it could be argued that this removal isn’t conclusive, and that the Government still could enforce such protections anyway. In that case, why was it removed then? The people drafting it saw a need to specifically include protections against forced vaccination. There was a concern they were addressing. Then they specifically wrote it out.

To further make this point, consider these categories:

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

These “vaccines” fall under the second category. They were authorized under a temporary order, because politicians declared that it was worth the risk. They are not, and have never been, approved.

And Doug Ford’s Government removed protections for workers that would have provided cover from bosses who make this demand. Once again, these were never approved, and simply given temporary authorization. So much for his slogan: “For The People”.

CV #37(G): No Science Behind Determining A “Variant” Of Coronavirus, Just Make Assumptions

Do we have actual “experts” and “professionals” in charge? Or, are we being ruled by a group of actors being paid to read from a script? More and more, it appears to be the latter. There’s little reason or justification behind a lot of what they do, and no science.

1. Remember: Listen To The “Experts” For Advice

So-called “experts” here and here talk about need for more lockdowns. It’s interesting how many of these interviews are softballs. Instead of pushing hard for a justification, these “journalists” seem content to parrot the talking points. Is there a lockdown or martial law area of expertise in epidemiology? How is it they are all completely on the same page when it comes to imposing restrictions?

Fauci: Just assume these variants are more dangerous. Don’t worry about proof or testing, just guess and make predictions. It’s shocking that anyone still takes this quack seriously, considering how wrong he has been about everything.

When he says (at 0:36) that the Pfizer and Moderna seem to continue to be effective against the mutant strain, what is he basing this on? Was there research and testing, or is he making more assumptions? Likewise, what is the basis of his claims of vaccine efficacy being reduced?

(At 1:22) he talks about modifying and upgrading vaccines. In that case, what is the point of vaccinating everyone now if it will become obsolete at a later point?

Also, never forget: Anthony Fauci was previously on the Scientific Advisory Council in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

The so-called “top doctors” in Alberta and British Columbia, Deena Hinshaw and Bonnie Henry, have a great scientific method for determining whether you have a variant. To heck with confirmation sequencing. They say you should just assume you have it.

2. Definitions Of CV Cases And Deaths

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19

Never mind that the BC Centre for Disease Control admits that these tests can’t determine if it’s actually an infection. Simply finding traces of genetic material (after many amplification cycles) does not in any way mean a disease has been detected.

(a) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(b) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(c) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

3. Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

An honourable mention to Fluoride Free Peel, and them filing literally dozens of freedom of information requests. If the “original” virus has never been isolated, how can there be any legitimate assumption that variants have been identified?

4. Lack Of Science Behind What “Experts” Doing

(A) Bonnie Henry Admits No Science In Anything She Does
(B) ARTICLE: Lack Of Real Science In “Global Pandemic”
(1) WHO Supports Mask Use, Admits No Real Evidence
(2) WHO “Still” Recommends Masks Despite Little Evidence
(3) WHO’s Records Show PCR Testing Always Was A Fraud
(4) WHO Distorts On Cases, Deaths, Surveillance Information
(5) WHO Promotes Masks For Children As Young As 6
(6) RT-PCR Tests For A Gene, Not A Virus

If you still think this is all about a virus, and that people are acting in good faith, there is no hope. Fortunately, the readers seem far more skeptical.

Facebook Officials Meetings With Canadian Parliament: Still Pretty Cozy

Does nothing seem off about this? Facebook meeting with Parliament to discuss what revenue sharing and terms of service will be allowed? Or Kevin Chan and Rachel Curran both working in the Government previously?

1. Important Links

Parliamentary Hearing Information
January 29 Parliamentary Meeting (English)
March 29 Parliamentary Hearing (English)
Bill C-10: Changes To Broadcasting Act (Review)
Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act (Review)
Journalism Trust Initiatives, Related Groups (Review)

2. Facebook Far Too Connected To Politics

As outlined previously, Facebook Canada is far too intertwined with major politicians in Canada. This includes both Liberals and Conservatives, and lots of background is provided here. How there be any real independence?

3. Video Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

March 29, 2021 (Meeting 22)
Facebook Inc.

  • Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada
  • Marc Dinsdale, Head, Media Partnerships, Facebook Canada
  • Rachel Curran, Policy Manager, Facebook Canada

January 29, 2021 (Meeting 12)
Department of Canadian Heritage

  • Hélène Laurendeau, Deputy Minister
  • Jean-Stéphen Piché, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs

Facebook Inc.

  • Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada
  • Marc Dinsdale, Head, Media Partnerships, Facebook Canada
  • Rachel Curran, Policy Manager, Facebook Canada

House of Commons

  • Hon. Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Bit of a sidenote: Marc Dinsdale worked for Rogers Communications and Bell Media prior to getting involved with Facebook. Very interesting.

Guess we will have to see what changes result from all of this. However, it doesn’t appear that the participants are free speech absolutists in the slightest. So what exactly will they deem as worthy to scrub from the internet?

4. Hearings For Bill C-10 Ongoing

Worth a reminder: the hearings for Bill C-10 are going on at the same time. This has the power to drastically alter the media landscape in Canada. That Bill has cleared Second Reading and is being studied. A followup will need to be done just on this Bill.

TSCE #11(C): Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

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

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/43/2/14
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/3/22/garnett-genuis-6/

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
.
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.

TSCE #9(A): Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 has been addressed twice on this site, once for reducing penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

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

Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)

Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada

Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

3. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

4. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

5. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

6. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

7. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

  • 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

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.