Canada Archives - Page 107 of 152

September 5, 2020November 12, 2023

WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

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

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

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

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

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

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

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

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

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

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

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

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

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

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

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

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

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

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

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

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

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

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

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

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

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

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

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

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

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

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

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

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

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

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

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

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

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

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

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

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

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

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

September 4, 2020December 14, 2024

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

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

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

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

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

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

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

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

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

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

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

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

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEAF is Anti-Life

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

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

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

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

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

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

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

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

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

(also addressed to)

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

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

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

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

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

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

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

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

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

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

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

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

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

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

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

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

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

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

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

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

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

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

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

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

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

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

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

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

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

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

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

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

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

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

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

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

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

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

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Free Speech Submission womens LEAF

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

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

September 2, 2020April 4, 2023

Bank For International Settlements Immunity Act, And More

Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act
S.C. 2007, c. 35, s. 140
.
Assented to 2007-12-14
.
An Act to provide immunity to the Bank for International Settlements from government measures and from civil judicial process
.
[Enacted by section 140 of chapter 35 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, in force on assent December 14, 2007.]
.
Marginal note: Short title
.
1 This Act may be cited as the Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — government measures
.
2 The Bank for International Settlements, its property and any property entrusted to it are exempt from the measures referred to in Article 1 of the Protocol regarding the immunities of the Bank for International Settlements that was ratified by Canada on January 20, 1938.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — judicial process
.
3 (1) The Bank is immune from the juris-diction of any court in respect of a civil proceeding.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — property
.
(2) The Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are immune, in respect of any civil proceeding, from attachment and execution.
.
Marginal note: Binding on Her Majesty
.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.
.
Marginal note: Non-application of sections 2 and 3
.
4 For reasons of national security or for the purposes of the conduct of Canada’s international affairs or the implementation of Canada’s international obligations, the Governor in Council may determine that, to the extent specified by the Governor in Council,
.
(a) the Bank, its property and any property entrusted to it are not exempt under section 2;
.
(b) the Bank is not immune under subsection 3(1); and
.
(c) the Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are not immune under subsection 3(2)

In short, the Bank for International Settlements is immune from any jurisdiction in Canada.

It’s true that there is a provision that allows the Governor in Council to waive some or all of that immunity. However, when politicians see no issue with turning control of Canadian finances over to foreign, private interests, one has to wonder what it would take to be in Canada’s national interests.

1. Budget & Econ Statement Impl Act, (2007)

For reference, the Bank of International Settlements Immunity Act was just one part, Part 6, of the Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007 (S.C. 2007, c. 35).

2. Protocols For Immunity For BIS

protocols.for.immunity.bank.intl.settlements.1930
protocols.for.immunity.bank.intl.settlements.1936

Throughout the 1930s, various nations signed on to ensure the Bank for International Settlements had legal immunity from legal restrictions or orders in member states. This was almost a century ago.

3. BIS Legal Protections In Switzerland

bis.switzerland.legal.status.of.bank

Article 1
Legal personality
The Swiss Federal Council acknowledges the international legal personality and the legal capacity within Switzerland of the Bank for International Settlements (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”).

Article 2
Freedom of action of the Bank
.
1. The Swiss Federal Council shall guarantee to the Bank the autonomy and freedom of action to which it is entitled as an international organisation.
.
2. In particular, it shall grant to the Bank, as well as to its member institutions in their relations with the Bank, absolute freedom to hold meetings, including freedom of discussion and decision.

Article 3
Inviolability
.
1. The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent Headquarters Agreement with Switzerland 37 of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
.
2. The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.
.
3. The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.

Article 4
Immunity from jurisdiction and execution
1. The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, save:
.
(a) to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representatives;
.
(b) in civil or commercial suits, arising from banking or financial transactions, initiated by contractual counterparties of the Bank, except in those cases in which provision for arbitration has been or shall have been made;
.
(c) in the case of any civil action against the Bank for damage caused by any vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Bank.
.
2. Disputes arising in matters of employment relations between the Bank and its Officials or former Officials, or persons claiming through them, shall be settled by the Administrative Tribunal of the Bank. The Board of Directors of the Bank shall determine the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal, which shall have exclusive and final jurisdiction. Matters of employment relations shall be deemed to include in particular all questions relating to the interpretation or application of contracts between the Bank and its Officials concerning their employment, of the regulations to which the said contracts refer, including the provisions governing the Bank’s pension scheme and other welfare arrangements provided by the Bank.
.
3. The Bank shall enjoy, in respect of its property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, immunity from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law), except:
.
(a) in cases where execution is claimed on the basis of a final
judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction over
the Bank in accordance with paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c)above;
.
(b) in cases of execution of an award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 27 of this Agreement.
.
4. All deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the express prior agreement of the Bank, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law).

The Swiss Government recognizes the Bank for International Settlements as an international organization, and gives it full immunities and powers over its land.

To be clear, the BIS already had very high levels and immunity long before Canada’s BIS Immunity Act in 2007. That just further cemented that immunity from Canadians or Canadian Officials.

It’s also worth pointing out that the property rights enshrined to this “international organization” far exceed the rights awarded to individuals in most nations.

4. BIS: Never Waste A Crisis

never.waste.a.crisis.banking.cv.climate.change
https://www.bis.org/review/r200717f.pdf

The pandemic is therefore a stark reminder that preventing climate change from inflicting permanent harm on the global economy requires a fundamental structural change to our economy, inducing systematic changes in the way energy is generated and consumed.

With brutal clarity, the current crisis has exposed two major risks to the global economy: first, the farreaching damages imposed on our society by a lack of prevention and early action, fostered by disbelief in science, in the face of a global shock that threatens not only the economy but our lives.

And, second, the repercussions of a failure to act collectively in a globalised world where inaction in one part of the globe can lead to highly disruptive and long-lasting spillover effects in other parts, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies most severely.

In this sense, the pandemic has been a warning shot with regard to the much greater challenge arising from climate change. In his famous speech, Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of England, has argued that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix”.[3] Moreover, studies have uncovered a significant lag in discerning the benefits of mitigation measures,[4] which makes it much harder to impose costs on society today if measurable results are available much later.

By making the costs of a major, truly global crisis more tangible, the pandemic may help to remove the “tragedy” from Mark Carney’s horizon: after COVID-19, the dramatic consequences of a global climate crisis may be much easier to imagine. And given the need for fundamental structural change after this crisis, the willingness to use this chance to take precautions against the even bigger risk of a climate crisis may have increased.

In order to achieve the European Union’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, our response to the growing risks of climate change has to start with the way we rebuild our economies after the pandemic.

In my remarks this morning, I will argue that three complementary pillars are needed to accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy: an effective carbon price, a strong investment programme and a greener financial market.

I will also argue that central banks have a role to play in mitigating climate-related risks, even within their
traditional mandates, because global warming poses severe risks to price stability.

These comments come from the European Central Bank, on July 17, 2020. They argue for using this so-called crisis for other purposes.

What a coincidence, that this “pandemic” gives these people the opportunity to impose a larger social agenda that they would never otherwise have been able to get away with.

5. BIS, UN, Carney Pushing “Climate Finance”

This was addressed in Part 7. Mark Carney was head of both the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England. Now he’s in charge of “climate finance” at the UN, and openly threatens to make companies go bankrupt if they don’t play along with the climate change scam.

6. BIS Arguing For Bigger Change

It should be alarming to people that an organization that is not accountable to the public, (in any country), is using its powers to argue for larger societal changes. However, our politicians are puppets who simply do as they are told.

(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.5/page-1.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2007-c-35-s-140/latest/sc-2007-c-35-s-140.html
(3) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.6/page-2.html
(4) https://www.bis.org/about/protocol-en.pdf
(5) https://www.bis.org/about/protocol-en.pdf
(6) https://www.bis.org/about/headquart-en.pdf

(A) climate.change.in.financial.sector
(B) climate.related.financial.disclosures
(C) eu.climate.goals.on.track
(D) green.light.for.economic.recovery
(E) pursuing.a.green.economy

August 30, 2020May 4, 2022

CV #60: Virus Deaths Pale In Comparison To Other Preventable Causes (BC)

8 months into a “pandemic” the BC Government has recorded some 204 deaths in the Province. Setting aside the issue of death count inflation, there are other preventable problems that kill more people.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports?keyword=deaths
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents In BC

bc.motor.vehicle.death.totals.per.year

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2008	MVA	377
2009	MVA	390
2010	MVA	383
2011	MVA	311
2012	MVA	291
2013	MVA	287
2014	MVA	306
2015	MVA	304
2016	MVA	320
2017	MVA	299
2018	MVA	314

3. Deaths By Suicide In BC

bc.annual.deaths.suicide

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2008	Suicide	485
2009	Suicide	510
2010	Suicide	533
2011	Suicide	527
2012	Suicide	512
2013	Suicide	525
2014	Suicide	644
2015	Suicide	616
2016	Suicide	603
2017	Suicide	572
2018	Suicide	575

4. Deaths Of The Homeless In BC

bc.homeless.people.deaths

YEAR	CATEGORY	# OF DEATHS
2007	Homeless	43
2008	Homeless	50
2009	Homeless	43
2010	Homeless	33
2011	Homeless	24
2012	Homeless	30
2013	Homeless	30
2014	Homeless	49
2015	Homeless	73
2016	Homeless	175

Note: This category includes all causes of death, the bulk of which were accidental, according to the records provided.

5. Illicit Drug Deaths In BC Per Year

bc.drug.toxicity.deaths.per.year

bc.fentanyl.detected.deaths.per.year

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2010	Drugs	211
2011	Drugs	295
2012	Drugs	270
2013	Drugs	334
2014	Drugs	369
2015	Drugs	529
2016	Drugs	991
2017	Drugs	1,495
2018	Drugs	1,547
2019	Drugs	984
2020 (July)	Drugs	909

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2012	Fentanyl	12
2013	Fentanyl	50
2014	Fentanyl	91
2015	Fentanyl	153
2016	Fentanyl	667
2017	Fentanyl	1,226
2018	Fentanyl	1,335
2019	Fentanyl	835
2020 (July)	Fentanyl	709

Of course, the fentanyl deaths are a subset of illicit drugs overall. However, they do make up a very large percentage of those deaths.

6. Deaths Caused By Alcohol In BC

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/statistics-reports/annual-reports/2011/pdf/death.pdf

Looking at the year 2011 for a moment, it seems that 1,412 men and 482 women died of alcohol related causes. That is almost 1,400 in total. However, alcohol wasn’t declared to be a pandemic by the British Columbia Government at that time. But in 2020, some 200 deaths (and an inflated amount), is enough to declare a state of emergency in the Province.

7. Abortion/Infanticide Deaths Per Year

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

YEAR	BC	ONTARIO	CANADA
2007	15,770	32,331	98,762
2008	12,914	32,150	95,876
2009	12,461	30,268	93,755
2010	12,149	28,765	90,747
2011	14,341	44,434	108,844
2012	7,128	44,636	100,958
2013	9,574	43,865	102,446
2014	9,196	42,043	100,194
2015	13,166	39,679	100,104
2016	13,116	38,383	97,764
2017	13,182	35,587	94,030
2018	12,206	29,513	85,195

A few clinics did not report, so the national numbers are actually a bit higher. Nonetheless, killing 100,000 Canadian babies per year is apparently no big deal, but 9,100 coronavirus deaths in 8 months is a pandemic. Provincially, 10,000 dead babies in BC is nothing to worry about, but 200 deaths in 8 months is enough to shut the province down. Sees very out of proportion.

8. Why Aren’t These Deaths A Pandemic?

There are other preventable causes of death, of course. However, the point is that this coronavirus is by no means the be-all that it’s being made out to be.

Even with the “flexible” death counts, CV deaths are just at 200, and that’s some 8 months into a pandemic. We need a little perspective here.

August 29, 2020June 13, 2021

CV #59: How Are People Recovering If There Is No Cure Or Vaccine?

Why the global pressure to come up with a coronavirus vaccine, even one that will alter our DNA? What people seem to forget is that most patients recover. It would have been nice if that had been posed to Gates.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Canadians Recovering From Virus

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html

3. Provinces All Recovering From Virus

This was addressed in Part 35, but remains just as relevant. Despite all the media and political hysteria over a vaccine, their own data shows that Canadians are overwhelmingly recovering. This is a hoax.

4. Australians Recovering From Virus

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers

5. New Zealanders Recovering From Virus

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases

6. UK PM Boris Johnson Recovered

The UK reports people who die WITH this disease as having died BECAUSE OF it, if the death happened within 28 days of being testes. This seems to apply to all regions within the UK.

Total number of people who had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test, reported on or up to the date of death or reporting date (depending on availability).

People who died more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death. People who died within 28 days of a positive test are included: the actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. People who died from COVID-19 but had not been tested or had not tested positive are not included.

Death data can be presented by when death occurred (date of death) or when the death was reported (date reported) and the availability of each of these time series varies by area:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/about-data

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recovered in just a few days of having this virus — unless of course it was entirely staged.

The UK doesn’t seem to be reporting on its recovered cases, (perhaps no one else in the UK ever has), but it seems like a very strange and suspicious omission.

10. WebMD On Coronavirus Recovery Rates

Coronavirus Recovery Rates
Scientists and researchers are constantly tracking infections and recoveries. But they have data only on confirmed cases, so they can’t count people who don’t get COVID-19 tests. Experts also don’t have information about the outcome of every infection. However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview#1

This is just WebMD, so take it for what it’s worth. Still, 97% recovery at the low end, and 99.75% recovery at the high end. This isn’t a legitimate pandemic.

11. WHO Admits In March Good Recovery Rates

Can antiretrovirals be used to treat COVID-19?
Several studies have suggested that patients infected with the virus causing COVID-19, and the related coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) had good clinical outcomes, with almost all cases recovering fully. In some cases, patients were given an antiretroviral drug: lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (LPV/r). These studies were mostly carried out in HIV-negative individuals.

It is important to note that these studies using LPV/r had important limitations. The studies were small, timing, duration and dosing for treatment were varied and most patients received co-interventions/co-treatments which may have contributed to the reported outcomes.

While the evidence of benefit of using antiretrovirals to treat coronavirus infections is of very low certainty, serious side effects were rare. Among people living with HIV, the routine use of LPV/r as treatment for HIV is associated with several side effects of moderate severity. However, as the duration of treatment in patients with coronavirus infections was generally limited to a few weeks, these occurrences can be expected to be low or less than that reported from routine use.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-hiv-and-antiretrovirals

The World Health Organization admitted back in march that antivirals were used on people with this virus, and with fairly good results. Again, why the push for a vaccine?

While the WHO doesn’t list the overall recovery numbers on its website (or at least they aren’t obvious), there are links on reporting “misinformation” on social media.

12. Once Again, Death Totals Inflated

Although a fairly long list, this is just a sample of the evidence that the coronavirus death toll has been inflated. If this were legitimate, there would be no need to falsify the data.

August 27, 2020December 24, 2021

CV #58: Vaxx Or Mask Rulings (2015, 2016 & 2018); Bonnie Henry Testifies; BC Ombudsman Report

There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.

Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Decisions

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

William Osler Health System, 2016 CanLII 76496 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.pdf
2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

St. Michael’s Hospital v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2018 CanLII 82519 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2018/2018canlii82519/2018canlii82519.pdf
2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report
https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/ExtraordinaryTimesMeasures_Final-Report.pdf
2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

3. Sault Area Hospital (2015)

2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above[425] were short of satisfying.

323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.

Decision
.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015

It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.

4. Bonnie Henry Testifies In 2015 Case

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.

5. William Osler Health System (2016)

2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
.
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)

12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.

13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.

14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.

Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.

6. St. Michael’s Hospital (2018)

2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

Introduction
.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.

St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.

This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.

Conclusion
.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.

One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.

The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.

7. BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report

2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.

The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute

The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.

8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging

The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.

The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

Share this:

Like this:

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

2. Important Links

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

20. LEAF Is Anti-Free Speech

Share this:

Like this:

1. Budget & Econ Statement Impl Act, (2007)

2. Protocols For Immunity For BIS

3. BIS Legal Protections In Switzerland

4. BIS: Never Waste A Crisis

5. BIS, UN, Carney Pushing “Climate Finance”

6. BIS Arguing For Bigger Change

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents In BC

3. Deaths By Suicide In BC

4. Deaths Of The Homeless In BC

5. Illicit Drug Deaths In BC Per Year

6. Deaths Caused By Alcohol In BC

7. Abortion/Infanticide Deaths Per Year

8. Why Aren’t These Deaths A Pandemic?

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Canadians Recovering From Virus

3. Provinces All Recovering From Virus

4. Australians Recovering From Virus

5. New Zealanders Recovering From Virus

6. UK PM Boris Johnson Recovered

7. Japanese Are Recovering From Virus

8. Philippinos Are Recovering From Virus

9. Michigan Residents Recovering From Virus

10. WebMD On Coronavirus Recovery Rates

11. WHO Admits In March Good Recovery Rates

12. Once Again, Death Totals Inflated

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Decisions

3. Sault Area Hospital (2015)

4. Bonnie Henry Testifies In 2015 Case

5. William Osler Health System (2016)

6. St. Michael’s Hospital (2018)

7. BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report

8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging