Category: Canada

Posted on

IMM #1(B): CANZUK Expansion, The Open Borders Bait-And-Switch

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. There is so much information that politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” are withholding.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/which-countries.html
(2) http://archive.is/vH7wu
(3) Which Countries Could Eventually Join CANZUK_ – CANZUK International
(4) https://extranewsfeed.com/how-canzuk-could-change-the-shape-of-the-modern-world-64caf3756933
(5) http://archive.is/7ckF7
(6) https://www.canzuk.org/canzuk_a_bold_idea_for_a_new_kind_of_trade_bloc.php
(7) http://archive.is/TAcAU
(8) https://www.canzuk.co.uk/single-post/2017/03/10/Lilico-What-other-countries-might-eventually-join-CANZUK
(9) http://archive.is/Il7Br

4. CANZUK’s Luke Fortmann On Expansion

As proponents of a new and exciting geopolitical union between the four CANZUK nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), we’re very often met with one particular question: looking ahead, who else might be able to join the partnership?

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

The original article was deleted, but thankfully it is archived. CANZUK researcher Luke Fortmann writes about the possible expansion and states that options are “always being considered”. To be blunt, this 4 nation alliance could swell.

Also, he does acknowledge that expansion would lead to mass migration to the original 4 nations, and to their demographic replacement. But he doesn’t seem to care as long as it’s done in an orderly fashion.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Expanding CANZUK

Listen to Erin O’Toole at 2:00 in the video

We can take it to the next level, to show that multi-later organizations can be aspirational. Where you have the rule of law, GDP, respect for rights, the Common Law system, the ability to support a free market, that you’ll work more together. Then we let more and more countries in, and revolutionize opportunities with CANZUK. Please support it. Thank you.

5. Australian Senator Paterson Supports It

Senator Paterson has also let it slip that he sees expanding the CANZUK zone as quite possible as soon as it is operational. The initial 4 are just the starting point. Interestingly, he points out that CANZUK is effectively an expansion of the 1973 Trans-Tasmanian Agreement.

(3:50) Rather than drafting a new agreement entirely from scratch, Australia should advocate adding Canada and the U.K. to the [Closer Economic Relations] Agreement, with only a few major changes if required…. Like the CER, CANZUK would include the freedom of movement between the 4 Commonwealth countries.

It could act as a strong voice in favour of the rules-based liberal order, that is under attack from populist movements on both sides of the political aisle around the world. Over time, this is a group which could grow. In the past week, I’ve had many good suggestions of countries that would make logical additions to CANZUK. Getting the core building block in place, though, I think makes sense.

Again, a bait-and-switch. Promoting it as just a 4 nation pact is the selling feature. Goal is to expand it once it’s fully operational.

6. Free Movement Is Primary Goal

Steve Paiken points out that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. happen to be majority white “for now”. Great emphasis. Knowing that it will change pretty soon. The people in the video make it clear they don’t care about demographic change.

7. ExtraNewsFeed Article On CANZUK

That leads into the benefit for the group in terms of geopolitics. Forming a close economic alliance with the EU would be easier for the bloc, and the two unions combined would have a population of 600 million people, around an eleventh of the world’s population. The combined economies of the two blocs would represent over a quarter of world GDP, at around $23 trillion.

Throw the US in as a partner, and this Western/Anglophone bloc is now worth half of the world’s economy and hosts an eighth of its people.

Some have mooted that the US or some African Anglophone countries might also join such a union, although this would certainly complicate trade matters and the idea of free movement. Perhaps a second “outer ring” union, with a pathway to full membership contingent on democratisation and economic development, could be created for other Anglophone countries.

That’s right. The article promoting CANZUK suggests creating a “secondary” level of nations, with a pathway to eventual full partnership.

8. CANZUK.org On Expanding The Zone

So, each of the CANZUK nations have focused on their local geographic regions with their trade deals, for reasons of proximity and ease of transport. But there would seem to be a huge opportunity here – for collaboration in free trade deals with each other’s home regions. For example, Australia and New Zealand already have free trade deals with China – Canada and the UK could hitch a ride onto these existing channels. And all four nations are interested in a trade deal with India – why not combine efforts?

These would have small effects to start with; but when combined over three regions – Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe, the effects would accumulate. Essentially, trade deals which would be too marginal to be worth pursuing on an individual national basis (for example, Australia-Norway) could be wrapped into a CANZUK framework. In this case, the UK would be the lead partner, opening their region to the other CANZUK partners.

Exactly how this would work remains to be seen. You could have a single CANZUK trade delegation, working together to land bigger deals, or a piecemeal approach, where the region lead partner(s) initiates the approach, bringing the others along for the ride as negotiations proceed.

While the talk of expansion appears to be in the context of trade, it would lead to economic harm, given how places like India and China can simply underbid local companies and put them out of work. And who’s to say it “won’t” lead to free movement at some point?

9. UK CANZUK On Expanding The Zone

I’m an advocate of creating a new geopolitical partnership between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). This would begin with a free trade agreement, an agreement for free movement to live and work, and a defence and security partnership. If that were seen to function well, we might move on to establish an ever closer union principle, and create some formal mechanisms for caucusing our views in global debates and enhancing mutual recognition of regulation and coordinating in other relevant ways. The aim would not be to create a new integrated superstate (certainly not at first, and probably not for many decades or centuries, if at all) but, rather, a geopolitical partnership, akin to the European Economic Community or Warsaw Pact partnerships of the 1970s.

However, a more natural way to proceed would surely be to get CANZUK established and if those initial countries worked well together for a few decades, we could then consider adding the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and St Kitts, perhaps after some providing some assistance to raise their GDPs per capita a little closer to ours.

Overall, then, it would be best to begin with the narrower set of countries that are most compatible. That will be challenge enough to start with. That does not mean that in some decades time we should not consider adding countries with similar constitutions, such as The Bahamas or Barbados, if they can raise their GDP per capita and reduce their murder rates. But decisions on that question are, at this stage, many decades away.

Yet another piece reiterating that the current list (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), are not the end result. Many more countries could be added at some point.

10. CANZUK Report Addresses Expansion

CANZUK-International-The-Future-of-Post-Brexit-Britain-2019

From a socio-economic standpoint, it is clear that integrating other Commonwealth nations within a facilitated migration initiative at this time would not work. At present, additional countries (such as South Africa, India, Jamaica and Pakistan, to name a few) do not meet the economic criteria that is essential for facilitated migration to succeed, as the benefits of reciprocal migration can only be guaranteed by Commonwealth countries that are very similar in terms of socio-economic characteristics.

There is no reason why additional countries within the Commonwealth would not be able to eventually join a facilitated migration initiative, but for the foreseeable future, the CANZUK countries are so similar in terms of social, economic, cultural and historical factors, it would be folly not to promote reciprocal migration, free trade and foreign policy among these countries and observe the benefits that such arrangements would bring

Read between the lines (page 9 of the report). Expanding CANZUK beyond the original 4 members doesn’t seem feasible, but doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t happen at some point.

11. CANZUK Bait-And-Switch

It is sold to the public as a free trade and free movement (visa free) pact between 4 very similar countries. While this may not sound too bad in principle, fact is that expanding it to other countries is also being talked about. What people are being sold on is not the entire story.

Of course, there are other references available to CANZUK expansion, but hopefully the point has already been made here.

Posted on

Controlled Opposition Politicians On Debt & Loans

(Political parties registered with Elections Canada)

Yeah…. this needs to be addressed.

The public is lied to constantly about the national debt in Canada. While media figures and politicians whine about “borrowing and overspending”, they intentionally leave a key piece out of the puzzle: the corruption of the monetary system.

In 1974, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (without a mandate), stopped using the Bank of Canada to issue money and started using private banking loans. Money is still artificially created, but at least using the Bank of Canada meant that ownership of the debt remained in Canadian hands. There was no legitimate reason for doing so, yet it is rarely questioned in the media.

Instead of continually drawing attention to this change, politicians and media puppets focus on borrowing itself, not the usurious private loans. They focus on a much lesser issue.

This particularly true among “conservatives” and their parties. While many how about excessive borrowing and debt, few (if any), will discuss the changes to the banking system since 1974. By diverting attention away from the main issue, politicians distract the public, and act as a form of controlled opposition.

This is the current list of registered political parties, according to the Elections Canada website:

  • Animal Protection Party of Canada
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Canada’s Fourth Front
  • Canadian Nationalist Party
  • Christian Heritage Party of Canada
  • Communist Party of Canada
  • Conservative Party of Canada
  • Green Party of Canada
  • Liberal Party of Canada
  • Libertarian Party of Canada
  • Marijuana Party
  • Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
  • National Citizens Alliance of Canada
  • New Democratic Party
  • Parti pour l’Indépendance du Québec
  • Parti Rhinocéros Party
  • People’s Party of Canada
  • Stop Climate Change
  • The United Party of Canada
  • Veterans Coalition Party of Canada

Note: this is not to endorse any one particular candidate or party. This research is just to see who is willing to address the topic of the Banking Cartel in an open and sincere manner.

1. Some Parties “Do” Address Banking Cartel

Before writing off all politicians and political parties as corrupt, it’s worth noting that some of them do address the corruption of the money system in their platforms. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

National Economic Plan
–Restore the Bank of Canada to its purpose as outlined in the Bank Act of 1938.
-Review and potentially repudiate debt incurred by our public institutions.
-Revise the Investment Canada Act so that foreign investment is prohibited in Class A Banks.
–Withdraw ourselves from organizations such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
-Increase the reserve ratio of our banking sector from 0%.
-Establish state-owned trusts or funds (GLCs) in major sectors of the economy under a policy of corporatization.

Platform of the Canadian Nationalist Party.

BANK OF CANADA
(a) Canada currently borrows operating and investment capital from other nations and from international bankers and pays interest on the debt incurred—around $70 million every single day!
(b) The CHP would restore the Bank of Canada to its proper function. It would create and provide Canada’s money supply and provide low-interest or interest-free loans to Provinces, crown corporations and municipalities for urgently needed infrastructure.
(c) Current governments, through incorrect use of the Bank of Canada, have created a blight over the futures of our children as they will be forced to repay the debt plus interest.

Platform of the Christian Heritage Party.

Central Banking
Central banking is essentially legal counterfeiting that enriches a few at the expense of the many, increases wealth inequality, erodes buying power, constitutes a tax on the unborn, incentivizes consumption over production, leads to a harmful business cycle of booms and busts, creates market distortions and creates inefficient resource allocation. The Libertarian Party seeks to end the central banks monopoly on money supply and monetary policy and move back to a system of free banking.

Platform of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act along with the 1938 Amendment and our own amendments, and thereby re-institute the true Bank of Canada, people’s bank, which fully belongs to the Canadian people, and thereby end the usury, inflation, and control of Canadians’ wealth by central banks.

Platform of National Citizens Alliance.

There may be other parties that have adopted similar policies. However, there are other parties who are clearly aware of the banking system, even if isn’t reflected in their current platforms.

2. Green Party BoC Motion in 2012

Party Commentary
If adopted, this motion will dramatically change the party’s fiscal policies by introducing the requirement that the federal government borrow from the Bank of Canada.

Preamble
-WHEREAS government debt is reaching such critical proportions that many countries are currently facing financial collapse because of the interest on the debts they owe to banks;
-WHEREAS Section 91 of Canada’s Constitution (classes 1A, 4, 14, 15, 18, 19 & 20) on the Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada stipulates that Parliament has full control of the public debt and interest, as well as the right to issue money;
-WHEREAS the interest on money borrowed by the government through the issue of treasury bills and bonds purchased by banks and foreign governments now accounts for about 90% of the total market debt of $596.8 billion (31 March 2011) owed by the people of Canada, and repaying that interest is advantageous to banks but deleterious to the welfare of the country;
-WHEREAS the Bank of Canada issues interest-free currency into circulation for the benefit of the nation, though this is currently only about 5% of the country’s money supply, under the authority of the Bank of Canada Act it is authorized to make interest-free loans to the Government of Canada to make up budget deficits and is currently doing so, by holding approximately $60 billion in Government of Canada bonds and treasury bills;
-WHEREAS the Bank of Canada currently lends the Government of Canada money interest-free through the purchase of government bonds and treasury bills;

Background
The Canadian government has been running deficits since the Trudeau years, except for a few years under Paul Martin when it was finally, painfully, able to move back into a surplus. But even when running a surplus, the government is still paying down the debt accumulated over those decades – debt which is composed of principal, interest, and interest on interest. And interest on interest is by far the largest portion of that debt. A 1993 Auditor General report said that of the accumulated net debt of $423 billion, only $37 billion was principal – the rest was due to the ‘magic’ of compound interest. Thus, a very large portion of all of the painful cutbacks, program cuts, etc. needed to ‘pay down the debt’ are to pay interest on debts owed to bankers. In 2009 (the last year for which data is available on Statcan), Canada paid $28.882 billion in interest charges. Since then, with a return to deficit budgets under the Conservatives, that figure has been rising.
It doesn’t have to be this way. This system of government borrowing is rarely questioned because the people running our banks and central banks have a vested interest to keep the system as it is because it works very well for them – they receive billions in interest payments for the ‘risk’ of lending governments money.

The GPC Shadow Cabinet believes that this is not a fiscally responsible policy. The Bank of Canada already lends at no interest to the government but when it determines that such lending would be inflationary, it requires the government to borrow on private markets. This resolution would undermine the ability of the Bank of Canada to carry out its mandate to control inflation. This approach to government borrowing is essentially the same as was used in Argentina, leading to chronic hyper inflation at great social cost.

It doesn’t appear that this motion was ever adopted into Green Party policy. Nonetheless, it does show that high ranking people in the Green Party (even in 2012), were aware of the scam that is the International Banking Cartel.

Elizabeth May and Jack Layton (then NDP leader), both knew full well about how the banking system worked in Canada. Yet neither would make it a major issue to be decided by Canadians. One really has to wonder how sincere they were, to intentionally leave this out.

3. NDP Socialist Caucus In 2018

28. Reforming the Bank of Canada Act
Whereas Canada’s national debt, owed primarily to wealthy bond holders, is the primary motivator behind austerity and the resistance to public spending to grow the Canadian economy,

And whereas well over 90% of Canada’s public/government debt is attributable to accumulated interest payments on Government issued bonds, interest on which no goods or services were ever consumed by the Canadian public;

And whereas it is both possible and preferable for the Government to use, as it has in the past, the Bank of Canada, to hold its public debt;

Therefore Be It Resolved that a Federal NDP Government, in its very first year, amend the Bank of Canada Act and proceed as follows, nullifying any international agreements that stand in the way:

Use the Bank of Canada as the buyer of all future Government of Canada Bonds and hold them interest free,
Expand the Bank of Canada as a full service Commercial and Industrial Bank that would serve Canadians on the same terms as the existing private banks. And host in its public service buildings Bank of Canada operations, including in, but not limited to Canada Post Offices, federally regulated airports, and any hospitals under provincial jurisdiction that accept federal monies through the Canada Health Act and corollary agreements.

The Socialist Caucus of the NDP, in 2018, passed a resolution to have the party revert back to using the Bank of Canada as a source of money creation, instead of the private banks.

In the 2019 election platform, the topic of the Bank of Canada was not mentioned anywhere. Pretty bizarre when the Socialist Caucus is the voice of reason on this issue.
NDP.2019.federal.campaign.platform

4. Canada’s Major LibCon Parties

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, the COMER case. In 2011, COMER (and its lawyer Rocco Galati) filed a lawsuit against the Bank of Canada. Beyond the private loans themselves, COMER challenged the idea that meetings with the Bank for International Settlements could be kept secret — despite the BIS effectively setting monetary policy in Canada.

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal, effectively ending the case. In short, they gave political deference to the government in allowing it to do such a thing.

The Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau started in process in 1974. Successive administrations (both Liberal and Conservative), have kept the system intact.

Also worth a mention, the People’s party of Canada (while not a real party), is headed by Maxime Bernier. Bernier was in cabinet during the early part of the lawsuit. It’s therefore extremely unlikely that he isn’t aware of the lawsuit. With his nearly 20 years in finance and banking, it’s not credible that he isn’t aware of how the monetary system works. While Bernier goes on and on about the DAIRY cartel, he never mentions the BANKING cartel. A nice way to deflect.

5. Parties Are Aware Of Banking Cartel

From the information compiled above, let’s ask who is fully aware of the scam that is private bank loans? At a minimum, it includes these parties listed below.

  • Canadian Nationalist Party
  • Christian Heritage Party of Canada
  • Conservative Party of Canada
  • Green Party of Canada
  • Liberal Party of Canada
  • Libertarian Party of Canada
  • National Citizens Alliance of Canada
  • New Democratic Party
  • People’s Party of Canada

Of course, it’s likely that most — if not all — of the other parties know about this as well. However, these are the ones where admissions can be directly proven.

While some on this list do openly campaign against the international Banking Cartel, others choose to ignore it. However, the topic isn’t addressed by the media. Politicians talk about a symptom (the debt), while ignoring the disease (the banking cartel).

It’s a sleight-of-hand that goes on all the time. Focus on the debt, without looking at WHO the money is being borrowed from.

9. True Scale Of Borrowing

(1) Debt.Management.Report.1996.1997
(2) Debt.Management.Report.1997.1998
(3) Debt.Management.Report.1998.1999
(4) Debt.Management.Report.1999.2000
(6) Debt.Management.Report.2001.2002
(7) Debt.Management.Report.2002.2003
(8) Debt.Management.Report.2003.2004
(9) Debt.Management.Report.2004.2005
(11) Debt.Management.Report.2006.2007
(12) Debt.Management.Report.2007.2008
(15) Debt.Management.Report.2010.2011
(16) Debt.Management.Report.2011.2012
(17) Debt.Management.Report.2012.2013
(18) Debt.Management.Report.2013.2014
http://archive.is/fp6MW
(19) Debt.Management.Report.2013.2014
http://archive.is/kkGL3
(20) Debt.Management.Report.2015.2016
http://archive.is/rrEEW
(21) Debt.Management.Report.2016.2017
http://archive.is/xy8Vt
(22) Debt.Management.Report.2017.2018
http://archive.is/SACp4
(23) Debt.Management.Report.2018.2019

Fiscal Year Amount Payable Amount Raised
2012-2013 $283B $246B
2013-2014 $271B $251B
2014-2015 $242B $243B
2015-2016 $238B $220B
2016-2017 $276B $252B
2018-2019 $241B $226B

Note: a few of the online debt reports have broken links and are not accessible.

The reality is that the Federal Government borrows over $200 billion per year, and the bulk of it is to pay off old debts. If we still used the Bank of Canada as a source of money creation this would not be a problem. However, the money is coming from private sources.

Rather than going through this cycle every year, one has to ask why not just pay off the existing debt (with a Bank of Canada loan), and then cancel the debt. Instead, successive governments seem content to just let the interest grow.

Taxation is only one source of revenue raising. The other big one is a form of “Ponzi borrowing”. It’s where the government issues more and more bonds in order to cover the costs from other bonds which are now due. Obviously this is an unsustainable system.

Instead of constantly shifting the focus with “overspending” or with “excessive borrowing”, politicians and the media should focus on the privatization of money creation (starting in 1974). Almost everything else becomes irrelevant when you realize this change was done in order to create unending debt. However, they won’t focus on the head of the snake.

(1) https://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
(2) http://archive.is/Keu60
(3) https://nationalist.ca/program/
(4) http://archive.is/3fBrE
(5) https://www.chp.ca/about/2019platform/
(6) http://archive.is/vGqlD
(7) https://www.libertarian.ca/platform_2019
(8) http://archive.is/wFyp8
(9) https://www.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/about-our-policies/
(10) http://archive.is/jSEGy
(11) https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention-2012/voting/motions/g12-p13
(12) http://archive.is/KmP7N
(13) http://ndpsocialists.ca/socialist-caucus-resolutions-2018-federal-ndp-convention/
(14) http://archive.is/HzBkn

Posted on

Making More Informed Voting Choices

Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.

To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Views/Bias Of The Author

Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.

Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support

  • Population replacement of Europeans
  • Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Forced multiculturalism
  • Replacement of Christianity in the West
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-children
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
  • UN and other “multilateral” institutions
  • Islamification of the West
  • Foreign aid handed out everywhere
  • Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Government control over all major aspects of business
  • Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
  • Restricting free speech rights
  • Strong gun control, seizures

Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.

  • LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
  • LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
  • LEGAL forced multiculturalism
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
  • UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
  • Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
  • Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
  • Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Business interests topping interests of people
  • Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
  • “Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
  • Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners

From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for

3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?

To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.

(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?

(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.

(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly

(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.

(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.

(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?

This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.

4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters

People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

5. Opposition By Scandal

Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates

There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.

To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.

Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.

7. Deflect With Personal Attacks

A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments

8. Take The Time To Self-Educate

Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.

There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.

However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.

Protect yourself.

Posted on

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

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

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

The agenda can be summarized as such:

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

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

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

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

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

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

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

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

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

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

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

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

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

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

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

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Liberals All Voted For This

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

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

CV #17: ConquerCovid19, The IDRF, And Other “Covid” Groups Springing Up

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for NOW Toronto article on Ford.
http://archive.is/46jhQ
CLICK HERE, for CTV article on ConquerCovid group.
http://archive.is/jxkaP
CLICK HERE, for ConquerCovid19.ca website.
http://archive.is/WSqCx
CLICK HERE, for ConquerCovid’s merchandise sales page.
http://archive.is/UMpvr
CLICK HERE, for ConquerCovid staff page.
http://archive.is/hF7Ud
CLICK HERE, for ID&RF mainpage.

CLICK HERE, for Ruby Alvi’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/7pK30
CLICK HERE, for Yusuf Ahmed’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/Rrll9
CLICK HERE, for Khadija Cajee’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/STrLJ
CLICK HERE, for Fatima Dada’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/iWdzY
CLICK HERE, for Chris Houston’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/8fIfa
CLICK HERE, for Nadia Malik’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/c8wLb
CLICK HERE, for Kashif Pirzada’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/1Duas

3. Context For This Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. ConquerCovid19.ca Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. ConquerCorona Partners With IDRF

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

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

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

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

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

6. About The Group’s Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Covid Care Collective


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

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

8. Covid Solutions Inc.

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

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

9. Covid-19 Legal Resource Center

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

10. Mr. Surprise Covid-19 Foundation


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

This corporation only came into existence April 20, 2020.

11. Outremont Covid-19 Help Foundation


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

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

12. CV Bringing Out Business Opportunities

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

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

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

Posted on

CV #16: Koch/Atlas Ties On Both Sides Of Alberta Bill 10 Court Challenge

In the 1990s, Jason Kenney was the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He has lobbied the Federal Government in that capacity.

The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms belongs to the same organization that the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation does.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global-news-leaves-out/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/post-media-controls-msm-conservative-alternative-media/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/4-much-conservative-content-dominated-by-koch-atlas/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/inner-workings-of-the-post-millennial-staff/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/how-to-do-your-own-research-investigative-journalism/

3. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-interview-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/whos-really-behind-canadian-conservative-alt-indy-media/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/much-of-conservative-media-in-canada-dominated-by-koch-atlas/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/the-true-origins-of-candice-malcolms-true-north-canada/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/taking-a-post-truth-look-at-the-post-millennial/

(6) Alberta.Bill.10.Emergency.Powers
(7) Alberta.Bill.10.JCCF.Legal.Challenge.April.30
(8) http://lobbycanada.gc.ca
(9) https://www.jccf.ca/about-us/the-staff-of-the-justice-centre/
(10) http://archive.is/2fJYj
(11) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-canadian-taxpayers-federation-alberta-1.3668514
(12) http://archive.is/etJls
(13) https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory/canada
(14) https://www.jccf.ca/health-minister-challenged-over-use-of-new-bill-10-powers-to-violate-confidentiality-of-patient-medical-information/
(15) http://archive.is/2zCDw

4. Context For This Piece

Having a healthy opposition, or group fighting the government is generally a great thing. Having an organization challenge bad laws or decisions in court benefits society as a whole. In this case, the bad law is Alberta’s Bill 10, rushed through Parliament. No serious person would deny that there are positives to challenging it. This is especially true given the hyped nature of CV.

Bill 10, in short, is a gross overreach and overreaction in response to this coronavirus “planned-emic”. It steps on many freedoms Albertans are used to having.

In a larger sense, it seems that many Western leaders are using this as an opportunity to crack down on civil liberties, under the guise of security. See Section #4 for a few quotes.

The JCCF is right, that such a Bill passed, especially with little real debate is a problem. For that, they deserve credit.

That said, when the power BEING challenged, and the party DOING the challenging are owned by the same organization, the public needs to know about it. One can legitimately ask if the entire event is staged, or at a minimum, if there is some conflict of interest.

Such is the case here. The commonality is the Koch funded Atlas Network. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is the former President of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which is an Atlas Group. Many of his former colleagues are also part of Atlas. The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is also part of Atlas Network, and in fact, its founder also worked for the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, though after Kenney stepped down.

A major problem is that none of these groups publicly admit belonging to the same institution: Atlas. There are 12 such think tanks in Canada, yet not one of their websites discloses their common bonds. This lack of transparency shows the whole Bill 10 proceedings in a whole new light.

5. Atlas Network’s Canadian Partners

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

There are 12 so-called “think tanks” in Canada which are part of Atlas Network. There were 13, but only 12 now. In the United States, about 140 operate. These groups push for globalist principles and are heavily funded by the Koch Brothers.

However, the individual websites don’t mention that these groups are have the same parent company, or even that they are linked in general. Interesting.

6. Challenge To Alberta’s Bill 10

DISCLAIMER: this article isn’t to defend Alberta ramming through Bill 10, nor is it an attack on the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms. Instead, it is to point out that both Jason Kenney and the JCCF have ties to the same organization.

Bill 10 was pushed through the Alberta Legislateure with minimal debate. This is especially bad considering how far reaching it is. The action brought by the JCCF is an attempt to get at least portions of that bill thrown out.

CALGARY: The Justice Centre is challenging the Alberta government and Minister of Health Tyler Shandro over using sweeping new powers under the Public Health Act via Bill 10 to provide police across the province with confidential patient medical information.

Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours and passed on April 2, 2010 with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading. It provides sweeping, extraordinary, and nearly unlimited powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen. Prior to Bill 10, the Public Health Act already gave extraordinary powers to Cabinet, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer in the event of a public health emergency. These existing powers include taking a citizen’s real or personal property without consent, authorizing entry into a person’s residence without a warrant, requiring mass immunization of the public, and imposing mass public testing. Under these existing provisions, a minister could suspend – for up to 60 days – the operation of any existing law.

The Justice Centre warned last month that adding to these existing draconian powers, Bill 10 would allow a single Minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offences for the populace without consultation with the Legislative Assembly. In response to concerns, the government initially claimed the changes were “minor” and “technical” in nature.

The allegations made here are certainly serious, but that is not the focus of the article. It is who controls both sides.

7. JCCF Part Of Atlas Network

John Carpay – President
John Carpay was born in the Netherlands, and grew up in British Columbia. He earned his B.A. in Political Science at Laval University in Quebec City, and his LL.B. from the University of Calgary. Fluent in English, French, and Dutch, John served the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as Alberta Director from 2001 to 2005, advocating for lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. Called to the Bar in 1999, he has been an advocate for freedom and the rule of law in constitutional cases across Canada. As the founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John has devoted his legal career to defending constitutional freedoms through litigation and education. He considers it a privilege to advocate for courageous and principled clients who take great risks – and make tremendous personal sacrifices – by resisting the unjust demands of intolerant government authorities. In 2010, John received the Pyramid Award for Ideas and Public Policy in recognition of his work in constitutional advocacy, and his success in building up and managing a non-profit organization to defend citizens’ freedoms. He serves on the Board of Advisors of iJustice, an initiative of the Centre for Civil Society, India.

The President of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms also spent 4 years with the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (2001 to 2005). Of course the CTF is also an Atlas group.

Not only was John Carpay a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (again, Jason Kenney’s old organization), but he was actually a registered lobbyist employed by the CTF. Kenney and Carpay both acted in lobbyist roles at some point for the CTF. Nice disclosure.

jccf.1.directors.founding
jccf.2.bylaws.rules
jccf.3.certificate.of.continuance
jccf.4.change.of.registered.address

The JCCF never mentions that it has a parent company (Atlas Network). Nor does it disclose that Atlas is the same parent company of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which Jason Kenney used to head.

Does this make Bill 10 okay, or the challenge bad? No it doesn’t. However, for the purpose of openness, some real transparency would have been nice.

8. Jason Kenney’s Ties to Atlas

Even after Kenney became a Member of Parliament, his old organization, the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, continued to lobby the Federal Government afterwards. Above are some of the meetings that took place.

“I only decided to do this in the past couple of weeks. I have a lot of things I’d like to finish in Ottawa. I’d also like to be in the House to say farewell to colleagues,” he said.
.
But it’s not soon enough for some.
.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which Kenney led in the 1990s, says its position on Kenney is the same as it is for all politicians who are seeking office at another level — they should take an unpaid leave of absence.
.
Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation says Jason Kenney should take unpaid leave while he seeks the Alberta PC leadership. (CBC)
.
“Politicians are elected, and paid, to do a job. If they are not doing that job, they shouldn’t be getting paid for it,” said Aaron Wudrick, a director with the federation.

Fast forward to 2016, the CTF is criticizing their former boss for continuing to hold a Federal seat, while campaigning to become Premier of Alberta.

They do have a valid point though. If Kenney is getting a salary as a Federal MP, he should be working in that capacity, not actively campaigning for a new job.

Beyond Kenney being the former President of the CTF, and using that to launch into politics, many of his co-workers (Provincially and Federally) also have various connections to Atlas.

9. Kenney’s Colleagues Have Atlas Ties

Let’s look at some specific examples of people that Jason Kenney has been associating with in his professional life. Here are some of the more prominent names.

  • Fellow ex-MP Maxime Bernier was Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute. It is headed by Helene Desmarais, Paul Desmarais Jr’s wife.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt was a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He was involved in a scandal for subletting a taxpayer funded apartment.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Candice Malcolm was part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation and the Fraser Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Joe Oliver is a member of the Manning Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Preston Manning is the head of the Manning Institute. In fact it is named after him.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Kasra Nejatian, is a Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. He is also a Director at True North Canada, though it’s not publicly disclosed.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA (and former Wildrose Leader), Danielle Smith, worked for the Fraser Institute for a short time in the 1990s.
  • Fellow ex-MP Chuck Strahl is a member of the Manning Institute. He was also part of the Trudeau Foundation.

This is of course by no means an exhaustive list. However, it’s worth pointing out that many prominent conservatives — many with ties to Jason Kenney — are all connected in some way to the same organization. It seems that Atlas is a stepping stone for people to get into politics. If you check the history of many of these people, they had some Koch/Atlas connection immediately prior to getting into politics. Or it helped get them further in politics.

Much of that information is detailed here, but it’s worth emphasizing just how controlled and consolidated “conservative” politics in Canada really is. All of these think tanks work for the same group.

10. Kenney’s Ex-Staffers Run Fake Charity

True.North.1.Certificate.Of.Amendment
True.North.2.Change.Of.Directors
True.North.3.Certificate.Of.Continuance

Malcolm seems to not be aware that her new “charity” is required to file annual returns. This will be a strange way to find out (if she ever reads it).

This was covered previously, but worth another mention because of how underhanded it is. Here are the main points to note.

  • Malcolm was previously a Staffer for Jason Kenney when he was Immigration Minister. So was her husband Kasra Nejatian. If you are going to establish a media outlet on immigration, it seems absurd to leave that connection out. It gives status.
  • Malcolm made her husband a director of the company without disclosing it publicly. In fact, you have to research the company to find that out.
  • As listed above, both Malcolm and Nejatian have ties to various Atlas groups.
  • While claiming to do “timely research into immigration issues”, a lot of what comes out is “Conservative Inc.” talking points on the subject.
  • Most importantly, Malcolm misleads and deceives about the real origins of this “charity”. While presenting herself as the founder, she omits that she simply took over and existing charity called the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Malcolm used an existing charity for the tax breaks since she likely wouldn’t qualify on her own. Saying she founded the “non-profit” branch, True North Initiative is technically true, but leaves readers with a distorted view. It is the charity part which makes her eligible for the tax breaks.

Worth mentioning: Press Progress also did a great piece on it.

One more point to add. Lindsay Shepherd works at True North Canada. Her boss is Candice Malcolm, an ex-Kenney staffer who was (is?) part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. The CTF is the same group that Jason Kenney once ran. Shepherd is also a fellow with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the group suing the Alberta Government, which is now headed by Kenney. Nothing inherently wrong, though it’s strange how these people just flow between groups. Conservative Inc. must be one big happy family.

11. Honourable Mention: Spencer Fernando

Although the National Citizen’s Coalition is not an Atlas Group, it was once headed by Stephen Harper. It is disappointing to see Spencer Fernando, who claims to be independent, spouting CPC talking points on his website and elsewhere.

12. Same Group Influences Both Sides

Again, this is not in any way to justify ramming Bill 10 through the Alberta Legislature. Nor is it a claim that such legislation should not be contested. It hits out against Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, and clearly wasn’t very well thought through. Using the fake pandemic to take away people’s freedoms and civil rights is just plain wrong. This is a horrible bill.

Instead, it is to point out that both sides in this, (Jason Kenney and the JCCF), have connections to the same globalist organization: Atlas Network. And Atlas gets much of its funding from Koch. Yet the mainstream media does not mention it, let alone provide any details.

None of these 12 Atlas groups mention that they are affiliated with each other, let alone that they have the same parent company. For groups that demand transparency in government, it is rather hypocritical. That alone should be cause for concern.

A cynic might wonder if this legislation was pushed through specifically so that the JCCF could launch a challenge. But we will never know for sure.