Category: Canada

Posted on

At Least 9,384 Illegal Entries Into Canada In Q2 Of 2022

Things are picking up again, particularly in Quebec. The data for the second quarter of 2022 (April – June) shows that another 9,384 people illegally entered Canada, and that’s just what’s on the books. It should surprise no one that Roxham Road remains the most popular point of entry.

To make it clear, these are just the number of interceptions that happened BETWEEN official border ports. It says nothing of the system itself being otherwise gamed.

YEAR: 2022
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 2,367 0 16 0 2,383
February 2,154 1 9 0 2,164
March 2,492 2 8 0 2,502
April 2,791 3 8 3 2,805
May 3,449 3 40 1 3,493
June 3,066 3 14 3 3,086
TOTALS 16,319 12 95 7 16,433

It appears that illegals coming into Canada is back in full swing, not that it ever stopped. Over 7,000 people were intercepted by the RCMP in the first 3 months of 2022. Another 9,400 came in the next 3 months. Of course, this is just what’s on the books, and just what’s publicly available.

The police didn’t seem to have any issues with shutting down businesses, stopping peaceful protests, enforcing mask orders, and the like. However, maintaining borders is something they lack the willpower to do. But they do make good bellhops.

Of course, this problem has been going on for a very long time. Here are some earlier years, to show the trends. There was a significant drop (although not a complete stop) during this “pandemic” psy-op. Makes sense, as flaunting the open borders would have been too obvious.

Let’s not pretend that this is an unsolvable problem. Governments could put a stop to mass illegal entries very quickly, if that was their goal. But they don’t, regardless of what party is in power.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Newfoundland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prince Edward Island 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nova Scotia 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Brunswick 10 5 5 ? ? 25
Quebec 1,335 1,295 785 875 1,035 2,595
Ontario 2,660 2,340 1,995 2,630 2,790 3,7935
Manitoba 20 15 25 10 225 505
Saskatchewan ? ? ? ? ? 30
Alberta 35 40 35 65 70 120
British Columbia 125 85 110 130 170 220
Yukon 0 0 0 0 0 5
Northwest Territories 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 4,185 3,770 2,955 3,715 4,290 7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. However, it’s only considered an issue when liberals is in power. A cynic may wonder if this is done in order to help perpetuate the myth that conservatives take this seriously.

YEAR: 2017
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 245 19 46 5 315
February 452 142 84 0 678
March 654 170 71 2 897
April 672 146 32 9 859
May 576 106 60 0 742
June 781 63 39 1 884
July 2,996 87 51 0 3,314
August 5,530 80 102 0 5,712
September 1,720 78 79 4 1,881
October 1,755 67 68 8 1,890
November 1,539 38 46 0 1,623
December 1,916 22 40 0 1,978
TOTAL 18,836 1,018 718 22 20,593
YEAR: 2018
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 1,458 18 41 0 1,517
February 1,486 31 48 0 1,565
March 1,884 53 33 0 1,970
April 2,479 50 31 0 2,560
May 1,775 36 53 0 1,869
June 1,179 31 53 0 1,263
July 1,552 51 31 0 1,634
August 1,666 39 39 3 1,747
September 1,485 44 68 4 1,601
October 1,334 23 37 0 1,394
November 978 23 18 0 1,019
December 1,242 11 27 0 1,280
TOTAL 18,518 410 479 7 19,419
YEAR: 2019
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246

There are of course some other points to bring up to give additional context to the subject of illegal border crossings. These are some recent ones.

Something not really reported on in 2019 was the fact that the Canadian Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin policy. This stopped people from 42 countries (mainly in Europe) from being able to abuse the refugee system with bogus claims.

The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

As for the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, people are still allowed to enter, and it’s still being gamed by human smugglers and traffickers. Few people know this, but the Treaty is actually a 3-way arrangement with the UNHCR acting as a sort of facilitator.

Not only is the United Nations a party to U.S/Canada border security, but the organization distributes information packages on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement. While claiming to care about the integrity of countries, they publish materials to do exactly the opposite.

And no, this isn’t just well meaning naivety. The U.N. has extensively studied the connection between lack of border enforcement, and the facilitation of human smuggling and trafficking. It isn’t a surprise that open borders lead to increases in illegal crossings. They know exactly what’s going on.

If that doesn’t make your blood boil, what will?

In all fairness, the issue of illegal crossings into Canada isn’t nearly as bad as the United States. Still, it’s an issue that does need to be reported on. The Q3 statistics will presumably be released in October or November of this year.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/roxham-road-reopen-1.6257868
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/processed-claims.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2017.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2018.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2019.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2020.html
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2021.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-10c-bit-of-history-doug-rob-ford-voted-in-2013-for-sanctuary-toronto-amnesty-for-illegals/

Posted on

Recent Statistics On Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide) In Canada

Some statistics are available for the totals of assisted suicide, a.k.a. euthanasia. Nearly 20,000 people have been put down, according to data from StatsCan. It will be interesting to see if there is a major spike in 2021, given harsher lockdown measures and vaccine passports.

Given the prolonged (and intentional) infliction of mental, emotional and financial harms, how many otherwise normal and healthy people have been driven to the point where this is seriously contemplated as an option?

YEAR CARRIED OUT
2017 2,838
2018 4,478
2019 5,425
2020 7,383

It’s interesting that this is pushed so heavily by liberals, who pretend to be adamantly in favour of protecting the rights of vulnerable people. There’s considerable overlap with supporting abortion, and the LGBTQ agenda. These are all things that have the effect of driving down the population.

In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada), representing a 36.0% increase in the number of MAID recipients from 2019 to 2020. As for the reasons Canadians are supposedly seeking early death, these are listed:

PERCENTAGE REASON SOUGHT
67.5% Cancer
12.4% Cardiovascular
11.2% Chronic Respiratory

There’s also some data for people who’ve changed their minds. The numbers don’t add up to 100%, as many checked off more than 1 reason.

PERCENTAGE REASONS SOUGHT
66.4% Changed Their Mind
47.8% Palliative Measures Are Sufficient
12.1% Family Members Don’t Support MAiD
1.3% Unknown Reason

In 2020, approximately 2.5% of people who previously applied for euthanasia changed their minds. It’s worth pointing out that withdrawal (of consent) immediately before MAID was 22.0%, or nearly a quarter of those.

It gets worse. New changes are expected to take place in 2023 which will allow mentally ill people to be euthanized (even if that was their only condition).

If a mental illness is the only medical condition leading you to consider MAID, you are not eligible to seek MAID at this time. Under the new changes made to the law, the exclusion will remain in effect until March 17, 2023.

This temporary exclusion provides the Government of Canada and health professional bodies more time to consider how MAID can be provided safely to those whose only medical condition is a mental illness.

To support this work, the government initiated an expert review to provide recommendations on protocols, guidance and safeguards for those with a mental illness seeking MAID.

After March 17, 2023, people with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition will have access to MAID if they meet all of the eligibility requirements and the practitioners fulfill the safeguards that are put in place for this group of people.

If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible to seek MAID.

Eligibility is always assessed on an individual basis, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances. However, you must meet all the criteria to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

In other words, it will soon be legal to euthanize people SOLELY for having mental illnesses. People who have them can still receive MAiD today, as long as there is additionally some other condition that qualifies.

Of course, this raises all sorts of other issues, such as exploitation and informed consent. Who will really be making these decisions?

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.htm
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying-annual-report-2019.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html
(4) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/220110/dq220110d-eng.pdf?st=okhC30sr
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

Posted on

Kulvinder Gill’s Other Frivolous Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit

Regular readers of this site will likely remember a $12.75 million lawsuit brought in late 2020 by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. They attempted to bankrupt and destroy 23 people and media outlets, largely over mean words on Twitter. Thankfully, sanity prevailed, and the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. (Ruling here).

Yes, Twitter is a cesspool, but this was ridiculous.

As it turns out, however, this isn’t the only time Gill has tried something like this. In March 2021, she filed a $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa, over much the same things.

Note: although the court search shows $5 million as the total, a read through the Statement of Claim makes it clear that it’s actually $7 million being sought.

To avoid confusion, these are the 2 lawsuits:
Case #1: Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al (dismissed as SLAPP)
Case #2: Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa (open, but dormant)

The first case was for $12.75 million, and the second for another $7 million. It takes a serious ego trip to think that words on Twitter are worth around $20 million.

Now, what were the specific defamatory statements for the second case?

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

No joke. Those are the statements provided from Attaran. In terms of raw content, this is far, FAR weaker than the last case, which was thrown out.

Think this is worth $7 million?

This apparently came from Attaran, who is a faculty member at the University of Ottawa. So, by extension, the school itself must be on the hook as well. Yeah, that’s not an abuse of the legal system in any way.

The big case with Gill and Lamba suing 23 parties was thrown out as a SLAPP, and never made it to trial. Here’s a brief quote from the Courts of Justice Act of Ontario, explaining the rationale behind having this option for certain types of cases.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

It should be noted that there’s no qualification as to what opinions are allowed in the public arena. Provided the statements relate to topics of a public interest, virtually anything can be given protections. It’s also a very low burden to qualify as being “of a public concern”.

Here’s a simplified explanation of SLAPP:

(1) Defendants file a motion, and they must meet the “threshold burden”. This is to convince a Judge that it relates to matters of public interest.

(2) Afterwards, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs, who must meet 3 tests in order to keep the case alive. If even one branch is failed, the lawsuit is dismissed. They must demonstrate that:

(a) There is substantial merit to the case;
(b) There are no reasonable defenses available; and
(c) There is greater interest in reputation than protecting the expression, even if the case does meet the minimum requirements for defamation

SLAPP legislation is meant to prevent people from using the Courts as a weapon to forcibly silence discussion on public interest issues. Simple name calling or insults don’t qualify. In the previous case, the Plaintiffs couldn’t even meet a single part of that test.

This case with Attaran and the University of Ottawa would almost certainly be tossed for the same reasons. The Court won’t take a Twitter spat seriously for the purposes of handing out millions of dollars.

That being said, it appears that there are no real efforts underway to force that case to trial. Nothing has been filed since the Notice of Intent back in June 2021. The case has been dormant for over a year. It’s unclear what the purpose of filing it was, since there wasn’t even any publicity concerning it.

It’s also worth pointing out that “full indemnity” is the default result of a successful SLAPP motion. What this means is that if the case is dismissed, the Defendants are entitled to 100% of their costs. According to sources from the last case, it cost about $1.3 million to defend 23 Defendants. It’s unclear how much it would cost Attaran and the University of Ottawa to do the same thing.

This is just a hunch, but the University of Ottawa probably has insurance to cover such things. What a great use of student fees.

One more thing: this upcoming case with Attaran won’t go anywhere in the foreseeable future as Gill likely doesn’t have representation at this point. Court searching also showed that Gill and Lamba are taking action against their lawyers from the last case. The amount is $5,672.66, presumably what they are out of pocket already, or at least a portion of it.

Gill and Lamba are likely also outraged at being abandoned during their appeal of the February 2022 ruling. But it all fairness, it never had a chance. And when it’s eventually dismissed, it will just add to the costs from the Trial Court.

Granted, Gill and Lamba appear to have gotten horrible legal advice for the 2 lawsuits (Lamba was only involved in the first). Still, reasonable and well educated people shouldn’t be doing such things, so it’s difficult to have much sympathy for them.

Strange, even the “alternative” media doesn’t cover these things.

Now, this is just an opinion, but people who act this way probably shouldn’t be in positions of power or influence. If some mean words is enough to cause someone to attempt to destroy or bankrupt another, then they don’t have the temperament or self control needed.

In other news: members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE in Ontario as to the updates on such cases. British Columbia has COURT SEARCH ONLINE, but that’s behind a paywall. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

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

Court file numbers provided

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

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

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

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Notice of Intent filed September 2020. No movement at all since.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

Good thing there are people who will put in the effort to bring the real truth out to the public. Virtually no media outlets do that.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

(4) https://canucklaw.ca/kulvinder-gills-frivolous-and-vexatious/
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(6) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(7) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program: Next round Of Grants

Canada’s Digital Citizen Contribution Program is back receiving the public’s attention. More taxpayer money is about to be handed out to groups and individuals who qualify under this program. Up to $100,000 (each) is available, depending on the details of the proposal.

This program, including the grants, has already been covered in the past. But it appears that Ottawa is gearing up to subsidize the next round of so-called fact checkers.

Eligible parties include:

  • a national, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, community or professional organization, society or association which has voluntarily associated itself for a not-for-profit purpose, and which has the mandate to represent its membership or community
  • a not-for-profit organization, including non-governmental or umbrella organizations, non-profit corporations, community groups, regulatory bodies or apprenticeship authorities, or associations serving the private sector
  • a university or educational institution
  • an individual researcher, acting in his or her personal capacity
  • a research institution with an established record in relevant field(s), intending to undertake work in a Canadian context
  • a for-profit Canadian and Canadian-owned institution with a record of developing and delivering programming, and performing research or related activities relevant to the goals of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative, provided that the nature and the intent of the activity is non-commercial

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance for research and citizen-focused activities. The Program aims to support democracy and social inclusion in Canada by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats.

Of course, it’s deliberately vague what “online disinformation” and other “online harms and threats” really means. However, it’s not encouraging when the Government is using taxpayer money to fund groups to promote certain versions of truth.

The deadline for applications is August 18, 2022. Presumably, they get sent to the Ministry of Truth.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/digital-citizen-contribution-program/
(3) (EN) Program Guidelines – DCCP
(4) (EN) Budget Template – DCCP
(5) (EN) Application Form – DCCP
(6) Unincorporated application acceptance of liability
(7) Direct deposit form

Posted on

Bill C-21: Reintroduced Legislation To Whittle Away Gun Rights

Bill C-21 was introduced in the last session of Parliament, but died when there was an election called. However, it’s been reintroduced, with some changes and new content. The changes primarily impact the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

It was recently announced, and covered by CPAC, that imports of handguns would be stopped by August 19, 2022. This was done by a regulatory change, without any democratic mandate or process. Seems that Ottawa doesn’t want to wait or take that chance.

Of course, the “temporary” measure announced on August 5th would be effectively made permanent if and when Bill C-21 is ever passed.

None of this ever addresses the elephant in the room: most serious crimes with firearms involve illegal guns, whereas this Bill primarily targets law abiding citizens. It’s almost as if there was some coordinated effort to disarm the population.

1. Adding “Red Flag” Laws To Canadian Criminal Code

Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code call for people to be subjected to weapons prohibitions following convictions for certain offences. The proposed amendments would allow ordinary citizens to file an application to have another person’s guns seized.

The hearings would generally be ex-parte, or without the participation of the other side. That doesn’t really seem consistent with due process, or fairness.

There is a provision in the Bill to remove firearms if a protection order is issued against someone for domestic violence and/or stalking. However, that’s always been a remedy.

2. Adding “Yellow Flag” Laws, Halt/Suspend Certificates

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 Insertion start(1)Insertion end A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
Start of inserted block
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

34 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:
Suspension
.
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b)Insertion end or an authorization to transport — Insertion startand the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a)Insertion end — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

A firearms officer can refuse to issue a permit “for any good and sufficient reason”. However, it’s not defined what a good and sufficient reason is This would make it almost entirely discretionary, and open to abuse. A license can also be suspended on those same grounds.

3. Prohibiting Any Sales Or Transfers Of Hundguns

Authorization to transfer prohibited or restricted firearms
.
23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

27 On being informed of a proposed transfer of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm under section 23.2, a chief firearms officer shall
(a) verify
(i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,
(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and
(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be;
.
(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee or individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;

These are Sections 23.2 and 27 of the Canada Firearms Act. It specifies the steps and actions needed to transfer a restricted or prohibited firearm from one party to another. Pretty straightforward. Bill C-21 would add an extra clause to that

[Section 23.2]
(d.‍1) if the transferee is an individual and the firearm is a handgun, the individual is referred to in section 97.‍1;

[Section 27]
(iv) if the proposed transfer is in respect of a handgun, whether the transferee is an individual referred to in section 97.‍1;

If a handgun is to be transferred to an individual, this would be referred to another portion of the Firearms Act. Section 97 allows the Governor in Council to restrict such sales or transfers.

4. Expanding Definition Of “Replica” Firearm

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm;

Changes to the criminal code would list that a replica firearm that can fire a projectile at a certain speed )(or with a certain amount of energy) can be prohibited. This could include things like paintball guns, which have valid recreational uses. Problem is, “exactly resemble” is subjective.

5. Other Thoughts On The Matter

There are a few small points which seem beneficial, such as making it harder for foreigners to enter Canada if they have convictions for certain firearms offences. But overall, that doesn’t offset the erosion of rights that’s being done with this legislation.

Another section would create a new criminal offence for altering the capacity of a magazine (allowing it to hold more bullets than allowed). While it sounds fine on the surface, someone with an illegal or stolen gun wouldn’t care about such things.

These measures do little to target crime. Instead, they restrict the rights of people to legally possess and use guns. Strange how that always seems to be the group of people these Bills hit.

Do read the entire Bill, as this critique is not exhaustive. It would be impractical for the Government to simply ban guns right away — though many would like to. Instead, introducing these measures bit by bit seems to be the way forward.

(1) https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=38406422-ecdb-494b-8439-a1fbdeaf4e28
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html
(3) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-to-ban-handgun-imports-august-19th-using-regulatory-measure/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading
(7) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(8) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress