Category: Canada

Posted on

Getting Started With CanLII, Other Court Records Searches

CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, is probably the most commonly searched index of court cases in Canada. According to its biography: “CanLII was founded and is paid for by the lawyers and notaries who are members of Canada’s provincial and territorial law societies, which comprise the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. We have also gratefully received funding for particular projects from provincial and territorial law foundations and other organizations.”

One disclaimer to add in: in certain instances records are sealed, or there may be a prohibition on publishing certain names. This is often done in sexual assault cases, young offenders cases, very high profile cases, or cases of national security. If the Judge has banned disclosing the names publicly, it’s best to honour that.

There are a few ways to search for cases. You can search by key words, or by a case citation, or you can scroll through the cases of a particular court. Beyond court files, there are also many listings of legislation across Canada, and plenty of commentary as well.

In searching through the cases, related documents and rulings cited will often come up. These can be clicked on for more information. Overall, CanLII operates as a mixture of Google and Wikipedia combined (although only a select few people can edit information).

A limitation of this site: not everything is listed. Minor issues (such as small claims), and decisions that are delivered orally are typically not posted. Nonetheless, it’s a great place to start looking for anyone. There are also Court Martial decisions, Court Martial Appeals, and tax cases available.

For the most part, CanLII is pretty thorough with its postings. Now, while it broadly covers cases across Canada, there are other databases that cover their own respective decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has its own database, covering rulings of the Top Court. The Federal Court also posts rulings for both the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

With these courts (and others) people can also contact the court directly to ask for documents. Generally speaking, if the documents are in digital form, the clerks will email them for free. If not, there will likely be fees to make copies.

As for some Provincial examples, Nova Scotia posts its own decisions. It covers all levels of proceedings over there.

In Ontario, any member of the public can search online for a particular case. If the parties are known, or if they have a file number, the status and representations can be checked. If a lawyer claims to be pursuing a case — but isn’t — that will be easy to check. As for searching for decisions, Ontario links a CanLII style page, and the same search options apply.

British Columbia allows members of the public to search for cases Provincially. There is also the option to search ongoing cases, and access documents (although B.C. typically charges a fee for them).

This doesn’t cover all databases, of course. However, the point is that anyone with internet access and/or a phone can search for court cases, and Court rulings. If the person is local, they can visit the building in person. This isn’t some secret repository, and proceedings are open to the public.

One other benefit: if someone starts reporting about Court decisions (that no one has heard of), claiming that major verdicts have been reached, it’s easy to verify or refute. Unfortunately, there’s too much misinformation — either intentional or inadvertent — being spread around. Videos like this talk about secret rulings which gave everyone back their freedom. Spoiler: they don’t exist.

If the Supreme Court really handed down such a ruling as referenced above, it would be pretty easy to check. Also, wouldn’t more people have heard about it? However, far too many will accept such outlandish statements at face value.

Instead of having to just take people’s word that a certain thing happened, why not look for yourself? Find out what happened, and what was really said.

Don’t be duped.
Check things out for yourself.

Note: this isn’t meant to be an all-inclusive course on how searches work. Instead, it’s just an introduction for people curious about this sort of thing.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/info/about.html
(3) https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx/
(4) https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/nav_date.do
(5) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home/
(6) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/d/s/index.do?col=54
(7) https://courts.ns.ca/
(8) https://decisia.lexum.com/nsc/en/ann.do
(9) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/OneKey/login.xhtml?lang=EN
(10) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/search-canlii/ocj-en.htm
(11) https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx
(12) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
(13) https://twitter.com/CanLII
(14) https://twitter.com/CanLIIConnects
(15) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/

Posted on

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

  • Records of meetings, minutes
  • Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Studies or research conducted
  • Amounts of money paid to people or groups
  • Sources of funding
  • Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

  • Section 12: Cabinet confidences
  • Section 13: Advice or recommendations
  • Section 14: Legal advice
  • Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
  • Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
  • Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
  • Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
  • Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
  • Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
  • Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
  • Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
  • Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

ALBERTA
(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

BRITISH COLUMBIA
(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

MANITOBA
(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

NEW BRUNSWICK
(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NEWFOUNDLAND
(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

NOVA SCOTIA
(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NUNAVIT
(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

ONTARIO
(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

QUEBEC
(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

SASKATCHEWAN
(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

YUKON
(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

FEDERAL
(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI Response Tacitly Admits There Is No Wave Of Hospitalizations

The following information came as a result of a freedom of information request (FOI), that a concerned resident of Nova Scotia obtained. Also, this review from in-fact.ca is worth a look as well.

For privacy reasons, personal information has been scrubbed. However, the data obtained (in an Excel spreadsheet), is quite telling. This covers the range from January 2015, up to and including May 2021. There has been no death wave, despite the media hype.

Iain Rankin and Robert Strang are constantly leading the Nova Scotia public to believe that there is some wave of hospitalizations as a result of this so-called “pandemic”. However, going back to 2015, it seems that the ICU (intensive care unit), has always hovered about 100% capacity. If there is some capacity issue, and lack of beds, this is a problem that dates back many years.

The ICU incidents of hospitalization hasn’t shot up either. Aside from March/April 2020, when the hospitals were emptied, it has averaged around 700 to 800 per month.

Keep in mind, the data for the FOI only goes are as far as May 2021 (hence the apparent drop). Nonetheless, this doesn’t look like some wave that we all need to be scared about. The above tables show combined data from all Nova Scotia hospitals. But even separating the data out, there isn’t some big surge anywhere. Even using the Province’s own data — assuming it’s accurate — there is no cause to be alarmed about this “pandemic”.

Do any of these regional data charts show any “waves” of ICU hospitalization in 2020 or 2021? True, this isn’t all of them, but look at the raw data. There’s no surge in any of them.

Note: this isn’t about debating whether this “virus” exists, as there is no proof it does. Instead, this is about showing Nova Scotia’s own reported data. Even taking everything they say at face value, there is no pandemic. There is no wave of hospitals being overrun. Sure, they may be understaffed, but that’s a problem that goes back years.

One really has to wonder why the Province’s “Top Doctor”, who looks like an unhealthy slob, keeps pushing the narrative that there is a health crisis. Makes one ponder the true reason they wanted protests and gathering shut downs.

Thank you to the person who took the time to file this, and then share the FOI data. It’s been informative, although not surprising.

Since we’re on the topic of FOIs, do check out the work by Fluoride Free Peel. This group has been trying to prove (or disprove) the claims this “virus” has ever been isolated. The results are pretty shocking.

(1) Nova Scotia FOI Summer 2021 Data
(2) Copy of FOIPOP 82 Data
(3) Nova Scotia Hospitalization Data – Sorted
(4) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Posted on

The Conspiracy Theory Handbook By Lewandowsky & Cook

Yes, there was an actual conspiracy theory guide published in March 2020. Now, that date shouldn’t raise any suspicions whatsoever. This publication comes across as a form of gaslighting, cloaked in fake empathy and understanding.

At first glance, this small book may be dismissed as trolling or satire. However, the authors are very serious, and have put considerable effort into this publication. It’s also very interesting that such a publication can be put out with little to no concern for the consequences. Can you imagine a skeptic who questioned climate change publishing something similar to this?

Apparently people who feel vulnerable are spreading conspiracy theories. It can also be seen as a way to be contrarian in political circles. Instead of recommending that the truth be investigated, people seeking truth can be dismissed for a variety of reasons.

There is also a good deal of projection here. Many so-called “conspiracy theorists” are in fact searching for truth, and trying to make logical sense of what is going on. In the case of the (alleged) pandemic, it’s public figures and the media who keep shifting the goal posts. Also, this site has covered in great detail the amount of financial subsidies that mainstream outlets receive.

Conspiracy theories aren’t always the result of genuinely held false beliefs. They can be intentionally constructed or amplified for strategic, political reasons. For example, there is evidence that the Russian government recently contributed to the spread of various political conspiracy theories in the West.

Conspiracy theories may be deployed as a rhetorical tool to escape inconvenient conclusions. The rhetoric of climate denial is filled with incoherence, such as the simultaneous claims that temperature cannot be measured accurately but global temperatures have declined. Incoherence is one attribute of conspiratorial thinking, but it does not follow that climate denial is irrational—on the contrary, denialist rhetoric is an effective political strategy to delay climate action by undermining people’s perception of the strength of scientific evidence.

In confirmation, people selectively appeal to a conspiracy among scientists to explain away a scientific consensus when their political ideology compels them to do so—but not when the scientific consensus is of no relevance to their politics.

Prebunking
If people are preemptively made aware that they might be misled, they can develop resilience to conspiratorial messages. This process is known as inoculation or prebunking. There are two elements to an inoculation: an explicit warning of an impending threat of being misled, and refutation of the misinformation’s arguments. Prebunkings of anti-vaccination conspiracy theories have been found to be more effective than debunking.

This is a way to preempt a person from asking logical questions. If you implant the idea in their heads, any doubts that might later occur may seem like conspiracy theories setting in.

Source-based and empathy-based debunking
Source-based debunking attempts to reduce the credibility of conspiracy theorists whereas empathy-based debunkings compassionately call attention to the targets of conspiracy theories. A source-based debunking that ridiculed believers of lizard men was found to be as effective as a fact-based debunking. In contrast, an empathy-based debunking of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that argued that Jews today face similar persecution as early Christians was unsuccessful

When all else fails, a little emotional manipulation can do the trick. Think of how the targets of your theories may feel. Never mind the truth or accuracy of such suspicions.

Trusted messengers
Counter-messages created by former members of an extremist community (“exiters”) are evaluated more positively and remembered longer than messages from other sources.

Another technique is to recruit people who used to believe (or claim to have believed) in a conspiracy theory before. Apparently they entire thing comes across as more trustworthy this way. This may explain why crisis actors and “reformed” people are all the rage. They can conjure up a good narrative.

Show empathy
Approaches should be empathic and seek to build understanding with the other party. Because the goal is to develop the conspiracy theorist’s open-mindedness, communicators must lead by example.

Have to love the approach here. Let’s pretend to show an understanding with another person, which having already written them off as conspiracy nuts.

An astute reader will notice that these authors don’t really suggest that conspiracy theories get fact checked, and that people work out their accuracy for themselves. Instead, we have a variety of techniques to be employed to plant seeds of doubt in people’s minds

Perhaps we can take something from this. Since we know (in broad strokes) what techniques will be employed, it should become easier to counter them.

(1) https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ConspiracyTheoryHandbook.pdf
(2) Conspiracy Theory Handbook

Posted on

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

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

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

Self-identified BIPOC? That sounds interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) https://www.hirebipoc.ca/
(2) https://www.hirebipoc.ca/about/
(3) https://www.hirebipoc.ca/partners/
(4) https://www.hirebipoc.ca/privacy/
(5) https://www.hirebipoc.ca/create-account/?v=j#join
(6) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(7) https://www.sherbrookerecord.com/hirebipoc-a-new-initiative-calling-for-more-inclusive-hiring-practices-in-media/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/

Posted on

Canada: Persecuting Religious Groups Locally, While Virtue Signaling Internationally

There’s something Orwellian about telling the world how important religious freedoms are, and how minority groups must be protected — and then forcibly closing down services within the host country. Canada is set to take in more refugees from Afghanistan, who are targeted because of their views. Will they be any safer here?

The following clips are from a Parliamentary hearing on June 22, 2021, to study the persecution of religious minorities in Afghanistan. To address the elephant in the room, it’s beyond hypocrisy to pretend to care about what happens abroad, while attacking such liberties domestically. How can these people do this with a straight face?

Many will recognize the photo as Grace Life Church in Edmonton, AB. It had previously been fenced off for the horrid crime of allowing free worship.

True, this hearing is done FEDERALLY, while the various restrictions are typically imposed PROVINCIALLY. Nevertheless, Ottawa doesn’t seem to ever criticize or condemn such actions. All Parties (Federally and Provincially) are silent on things like this.

Fine, the Canadian Government isn’t having religious groups killed (yet), but we don’t exactly have freedom here. If churches and other institutions can be ordered closed, and pastors jailed, it isn’t really that much better. Even in Provinces where services are “permitted”, that can change in a number of hours, with 1 signature.

What do Federal “Conservatives” say? Well, they will try to score points condemning abuses of freedoms and civil rights abroad, even as they promote the practice here. In different circumstances, this complete lack of self awareness would be quite comical. That said, no one could be this oblivious to what’s going on, and it has to be done intentionally.

Mainstream media outlets will never address this either. Then again, they have regular subsidies they wish to keep coming in, and it’s never wise to annoy major donors.

The 4th video is Conservative Party of Canada MP Garnett Genuis of Alberta. It’s interesting that the “Official Opposition” considers these protections so essential in other countries, but is silent about it within Canada. Would it be bad optics to inform the guests here that their newfound freedoms can be revoked at anytime?

There’s complete silence from MPs/MPPs/MLAs on how easily these rights are being suspended, all under a very flimsy pretense. Section 1 of the Charter (which allows for reasonable limitations) was never intended to be used this way. And restrictions had to be “demonstrably justified”, not just speculated about. If there’s a silver lining, many are realizing that we don’t have rights, but privileges.

Even if religious services aren’t limited or closed in many areas right now, they have been. It’s been done on an arbitrary basis, with no science behind any of it. Moreover, there’s nothing to stop various Premiers and their unelected “Medical Officers” from doing it again when the political agenda suited it.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5zGm3gJKg
(2) https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SDIR/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11398396
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210622/-1/35780?Language=English&Stream=Video
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11221893