Dysgenics Archives - Canuck Law

December 27, 2024December 27, 2024

Action4Canada Sued In Kelowna For Defamation

Action4Canada (A4C) will be back in Court soon, but for an entirely different reason. It seems that a drag performer didn’t like what the group was saying about him. The Plaintiff, Tyson Cook, filed a defamation lawsuit in Kelowna on December 19th. It listed the organization, 3 named Defendants, and 1 unidentified Defendant.

In addition to seeking damages, it’s clear that an Injunction will be sought to take the postings down, and to prevent future ones from going up.

Unlike the train wreck the group filed in August 2021, this suit is short, to the point, and well written. It spells out exactly what has been said and done.

To be clear, this isn’t a defence of drag performances in general. However, people REALLY need to be careful about what they publish on the topic, since it can result in lawsuits.

According to the Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, the content published by Action4Canada goes far, far beyond criticizing Cook for being a performer. The postings quoted are still available online.

It makes accusations that he:

is a pedophile
sexualizes children
exploits and abuses minors
is a sexual deviant
indoctrinates children
is connected to a rise in child pornography and sexual abuse
performs sexually explicit content in the presence of children
promotes self-harm, murder, and cannibalism to children, and/or
is an inappropriate role model for children

The content is still up on the Action4Canada website today.

In one such publication from last year, A4C posts his photo along with allegations of specific sexual offences.

20… The following sections provide the categories of offences tending to sexually exploit and corrupt the morals of minors, and/or make available or promote, sexually explicit material or activities: Section 151, 152, 153 (1), 163.1, 171.1(5), 172.1(1), 173 (2), 174 (1), 175(1) (see attachment). These are indictable offences liable to imprisonment.

Although the sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are listed, the actual offences are not specified in the Claim. Here they all are.

s.151: Sexual interference
s.152: Invitation to sexual touching
s.153(1): Sexual exploitation
s.163(1): Child pornography
s.171.1(5): Making sexually explicit material available to child
s.172.1: Luring a child
s.173: Indecent acts
s.174: Nudity
s.175: Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

It’s rather baffling that A4C would post such content, which explicitly accuses him of child sex crimes, but not expect a lawsuit in response. One has to wonder if A4C genuinely believed this to be the case, why not call the police?

What About Bringing An Application To Strike?

Rule 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia does allow for Applications to Strike if a NOCC hasn’t been pleaded properly. That is, of course, what happened with A4C’s previous 391 page suit.

That’s not the case here though. The entire NOCC is just 17 pages, including the covers. It clearly spells out the expression which is being sued upon, who made it, and when. It’s explained why Cook finds it defamatory. Whether or not it can be proven at Trial is another question, but it won’t be struck.

What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?

For reference, B.C. does have the PPPA, or the Protection of Public Participation Act of 2019. It’s based heavily on the Ontario model, and it written in an almost identical manner.

Note: This isn’t legal advice, just commentary.

(1) The Defendant must convince the Judge the expression is of public interest. If this is done, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to do 3 things:

(2a) Convince the Judge that the case has substantial merit.

(2b) Convince the Judge that there’s no likely defence.

(2c) Convince the Judge that the public interest in allowing the case to proceed to greater than the public interest in protecting the expression.

It may be a very hard sell for A4C to persuade that these kind of accusations are of public interest. But even if they do, it’s far from over. The case clearly has substantial merit (2a) — he’s called a pedo, among other things — and a Judge will very likely prefer that Cook get his day in Court (2c). The only possible defence here would be one of truth, if it can be established.

[1] Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster. This Ontario case involved comments about “groomers”, which was found to not be public interest speech, among other flaws. That Judge rejected “fair comment” as a defence, dismissed an anti-SLAPP Motion and allowed the case to proceed.

That case also had EGALE Canada acting as an Intervenor. It’s not too farfetched to think that they’ll also try to get involved with Cook and A4C.

[2] Teneycke v McVety, is an Ontario case which saw the anti-SLAPP Motion dismissed. It made allegations that pharma lobbying and a connection to Doug Ford were the reasons the Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Theological Studies didn’t receive Provincial certification. The school was against vaccine mandates. While Kory Teneycke is indeed a lobbyist with Rubicon Strategies, and has political ties to Ford, cause and effect couldn’t be established.

[3] Dong v. Global News is another case that survived an anti-SLAPP Motion in Ontario. Some CSIS sources had believed that M.P. Han Dong had betrayed the “2 Michaels” who were held by China. However, Global News published this as if it were an established fact. The defences of truth and responsible communication failed.

A4C may face the same hurdles with establishing truth or responsible publication. All 3 of the above cases saw their Motions dismissed, at substantial costs to the Defendants.

Another problem here is that not everything can be classified as expression.

18. On or about January 20, 2023, the Defendants, Action4Canada and/or Person A, created an online petition entitled “STOP Taxpayer Funded Drag Queen Sexualization of Children” (the “Petition”), and posted the Petition on the website CitizenGo. The Petition remains available online for individuals to sign virtually.

19. Please sign and share this petition and demand that the City of Kelowna STOP using taxpayers’ money to fund Drag Queen Story Hours, and further demand that the School District reassess Mr. Cook’s suitability as an EA”.

One other factor that goes against A4C relying on anti-SLAPP laws is that this wasn’t just about expression or speech. They created a petition, and essentially tried to get him fired from his job.

Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?

44. On or about April 25, June 18, and December 4, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the Defendants, advising them that the Defamatory Publications were false and defamatory. The cease and desist letters demanded that the Defendants remove the Defamatory Publications from the internet and refrain from posting further defamatory statements.

According to the NOCC, Cook’s lawyers sent several cease and desist letters demanding that the content in question be removed. A4C does have insurance, which is not surprising. However, it would be interesting to know if these letters were ever forwarded. For the purpose of mitigating risk, they should have been.

(a) If these letters were never forwarded, an insurance company may very well refuse to cover a lawsuit, and leave A4C to fend for themselves.

(b) If these letters were indeed forwarded, it’s inevitable that an insurer would have insisted the content be removed. After all, their business involves minimizing risk. If that was ignored, then again, the insurer would likely refuse to cover the expenses involved in defending the case.

So, A4C is in trouble again. If the group had any sense, they would take down the postings — voluntarily — and work to settle the case quickly. It’s not disputed at all that Cook does drag shows, but the other allegations may be very difficult to prove.

Action4Canada needs to hire a competent lawyer.

(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01#rule9-5
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-118604
(4) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7050/2023onsc7050.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1710/2023onsc1710.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3532/2024onsc3532.html

December 14, 2024December 15, 2024

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY	YEAR	AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2022	$25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2023	$54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges	2024	$54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2022	$8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2023	$8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)	2024	$8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC)	2023	$33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC)	2024	$33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2022	$362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2023	$364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	2024	$364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

September 23, 2024September 23, 2024

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

September 19, 2024September 19, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia For PROVINCIAL Frameworks

Just before Parliament took their summer recess, Private Member’s Bill C-390 was introduced in the House of Commons. It came from Sylvie Bérubé, MP with the Bloc Québécois. It aims to (once again) expands assisted suicide, a.k.a. medical assistance in dying, or MAiD.

It does this by amending the Criminal Code to add exemptions in for this “practice”, if it is carried out under an applicable provincial framework. If there are no criminal consequences, then logically, the Provinces and Territories could each write their own version.

Exemption for medical assistance in dying
227 (1) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 or an applicable provincial framework..

Exemption for person aiding practitioner
(2) No person is a party to culpable homicide if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 or an applicable provincial framework.

Non-application of section 14
(4) Section 14 does not apply with respect to a person who consents to have death inflicted on them by means of medical assistance in dying provided in accordance with section 241.‍2 tor an applicable provincial framework.

Exemption for person aiding practitioner
(3) No person is a party to an offence under paragraph (1)‍(b) if they do anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 tor an applicable provincial framework.

Exemption for pharmacist
(4) No pharmacist who dispenses a substance to a person other than a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence under paragraph (1)‍(b) if the pharmacist dispenses the substance further to a prescription that is written by such a practitioner in providing medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 tor an applicable provincial framework.

Exemption for person aiding patient
(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)‍(b) if they do anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241.‍2 or an applicable provincial framework.

Failure to comply with safeguards
241.‍3 A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who, in providing medical assistance in dying, knowingly fails to comply, subject to subsection 241.‍2(3.‍2), with all the requirements set out in paragraphs 241.‍2(3)‍(b) to (h) or paragraphs 241.‍2(3.‍1)‍(b) to (k) or all the requirements of an applicable provincial framework, as the case may be, and with subsection 241.‍2(8) is guilty of

Now, why would Bérubé draft such a Bill?

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, she met with a group called Dying With Dignity shortly after the Bill was introduced.

The group is also a registered charity, meaning that taxpayers are subsidizing any donations that come in. The amount of direct subsidies seem minimal.

According to the information available with the Canada Revenue Agency, this charity takes in roughly $2 million per year. The vast majority is from private donations.

Dying With Dignity advocates for euthanasia for people with mental disorders, which is pretty messed up. It seems to tiptoe around the issue of informed consent.

They also support the rights of “mature minors” to get MAiD. Interestingly, there doesn’t appear to be any minimum age specified on the site, nor any safeguards in place.

This group also supports the concept of “removing final consent“, or making requests in advance. This seems to line up with Bill S-248, introduced by Pamela Wallin.

So, where does the line get drawn? It doesn’t seem that there is one.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-390
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-390/first-reading
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/sylvie-berube(104622)
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=610243
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366489&regId=951614#regStart
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=dying+with+dignity&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=118890086RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(7) https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/
(8) https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advocacy/allow-maid-for-mental-disorders/
(9) https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advocacy/mature-minors/
(10) https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advocacy/advance-requests/

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(17) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(18) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(19) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(20) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

September 18, 2024September 18, 2024

Bill C-293 (International Pandemic Treaty) Revisited: Concerns Raised Over Food Supply

Bill C-293 was covered in early 2023. This is a Private Member’s Bill for domestic implementation of the International Pandemic Treaty, and is now in the Senate.

Parliament had hearings back in late 2023, and those same issues may come up in the Senate. In particular, several groups raised concerns about the food supply should this legislation pass. Specifically, these would include:

regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture
promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins
phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

Back in 2017, there was a major initiative from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to push for mass production of “plant proteins”. For ideological reasons, the Government was trying to phase out meat.

Some participants in the hearings expressed concerns that echoed this.

1. Canadian Federation of Agriculture

However, we write today to express significant concerns with aspects Bill C-293, particularly in its impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector. While the primary objective of the Bill is pandemic prevention and preparedness, it contains content and language that will adversely affect Canadian farmers and ranchers if passed in its current form. Specifically, we are concerned by the Bill’s language around livestock farming, the promotion of alternative proteins, and the focus on animal agriculture in the context of antimicrobial resistance rather than within the more comprehensive One Health perspective.

Irrelevant focus on alternative proteins, in the context of pandemic preparedness
.
In particular, section 4 (2) (I) of Bill C-293 dissents from the tone and language used throughout other
sections of the Bill and instead, includes language promoting the production and use of alternative proteins and the regulation of animal agriculture, and the phase-out of high-risk species.

2. Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario

Animal Agriculture
Section 4 (2) (l) (ii – iv) directly correlate animal agriculture with increased pandemic risk. These sections further direct the promotion of “alternative proteins,” based on a notion of reduced pandemic risk. This language unfairly represents the risks posed by animal agriculture. These sections of the Bill, as worded, further require drastic action including measures to regulate” animal agriculture and to “phase out…high risk species” in response to this exaggerated notion of risk. These sections should also be removed from the Bill.

Drastic actions, such as those suggested in the current wording of the Bill, in the case of food animals in particular, would result in loss of food supply, economic losses, and increased cost of food, among other effects.

3. Chicken Farmers of Canada

While the majority of the Bill uses overarching language to describe the work of the Advisory Committee on pandemic response (as appointed by the Minister of Health) and the content of their reports, Section 4 (2) (l) is very specific in its intent to promote alternative proteins, regulate animal agriculture and phase out high-risk species.

CFC believes that the basis of this section makes a judgment call that animal agriculture is the cause of pandemics – a notion that is not supported and does not represent the cause of diseases listed in the preamble of the Bill. This premise is tied to the initiative of promoting the production of alternate proteins, which is a specific example not seen elsewhere in the Bill. Initiatives to promote alternative proteins in a Bill on pandemic prevention and preparedness is misplaced and misaligned with the Bill’s objectives. CFC believes that Section 4 (2) (l) is too limiting in its direction and in turn could distract the Advisory Committee from more beneficial areas of work.

4. Canada Mink Breeders Association

1. Remove Clause 2(l)(iii)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins

2. Remove Clause 2(l)(iv)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

3. Remove Clause 2(m)(ii)
(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
• (ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets

All of these groups raised concerns that social policies would be implemented through the backdoor, under the guise of “pandemic prevention”.

A group called Results Canada took a very different approach. It asked that Bill C-293 be amended to include something called “surge financing”. It appears to be an attempt to trigger easier access to money, in the event of a “pandemic”,

4(2)(n.1) “a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Finance, of the measures the Minister intends to take to support the availability of surge financing, as well as the funding of pandemic preparedness and response by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other relevant international organizations;”

Lisa Barrett, the infamous Nova Scotia doctor who had pushed lockdowns, said that she preferred that the Bill be altered in a way where the “correct” science could be promoted.

Again, it’s not specifically about the bill, but I could link it to the bill.

I think that having pieces of misinformation and disinformation out there like that, particularly around vaccination, is part of the issue. If this bill can actually develop a process where science is promoted, as well as the dissemination of science in a trustful way, we could probably get rid of a lot of those statements. Those are not statements I would support, and I think it’s a demonstration of overt mis- and disinformation from certain individuals. Hopefully, we can get beyond that and maybe there’s some use for a bill like this to promote it.
As with most of these Bills, the devil is in the details. The broad outline provided does nothing to answer specifics regarding food supply. Presumably, there would be regulations made by unelected bureaucrats.

Private Member’s Bills usually go nowhere. But this one is already in the Senate. Where did Nathaniel Erskine-Smith get the idea to introduce this? Who wrote it for him?

Critics fear that entire crops and industries could disappear under the guise of “public safety”. It doesn’t really specify any built-in protections. And with “experts” like Lisa Barrett, it’s not a stretch to think that martial law mandates could return in some form.

What will happen in the Senate?

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(17) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(18) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(19) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(20) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

September 14, 2024September 28, 2024

HateGate, Part 4: A Look At Hategan’s Book “Race Traitor”

This continues the series on “HateGate”. This is the fake scandal which supposedly showed that the Emergencies Act was invoked because of a meme. More broadly, this ongoing series covers Diagolon, the fed honeypot used as an intelligence gathering operation.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Followers of this cult repeat the talking point that the group was “vindicated” by the HateGate Report. This was the 85 page document from Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. The short version is that the RCMP, CSIS and Government relied on speculative reporting (such as from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network), and wrongly sounded the alarm.

Aside from the fact that the “smoking gun” 1,082 page FOIPIP package doesn’t support this, there’s a lot of background information missing about the story.

Turns out that Hategan, one of the co-authors of the HateGate Report wrote a book years back called Race Traitor. She’s also posted about her desire to lock up “racists“. It’s a little bizarre that she would work to clear people who despise her for being Jewish and a lesbian.

Hategan talks at length about her time with “Heritage Front”, which was a prominent neo-Nazi group back in the 1980’s and 1990’s. She was involved with it as a teenager, even committing illegal acts. She also writes about how one of the co-founders, Grant Bristow, in fact worked for CSIS. As it turns out, CSIS was largely responsible for creating, financing and growing it.

And why? To act as a honeypot to identify and gain intelligence about whites concerned about demographic changes.

The parallels between Heritage Front and Diagolon are striking. Despite this, Sa’d and Hategan go out of their way to avoid asking the obvious question: is Diagolon just another operation?

Summary Of Hategan’s Book: Race Traitor

Hategan’s book is available online. Unsurprisingly, it’s a biography, told in first person. To avoid any frivolous claims of copyright infringement, the text won’t be included. However, here are some of the more interesting sections, with page numbers.

(Page 5) The Prologue starts. Hategan is quite open and upfront that Heritage Front was in fact created and partially funded by CSIS, and that Grant Bristow was a CSIS agent. She also testified in Court about several of the members.

(Page 48) Hategan gets into details about recruitment of Heritage Front, and about how its goals included preventing what was already underway in Europe with illegals invading.

(Page 92) Hategan has discussions about the books: (a) The Turner Diaries; and (b) Day of the Rope. Incidently, those books are also promoted by Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon.

(Page 110) Hategan talks about going to rallies with Heritage Front. She also acknowledges that media attention helped make the group a household name. Didn’t the same thing happen with MacKenzie and Diagolon?

(Page 124) Hategan talks about efforts to infiltrate the Reform Party, led by Preston Manning at the time. Interestingly, the same claim is made today about Poilievre and Bernier’s organizations. Hategan admits that had Bristow been charged then, a lot of people wouldn’t have been harassed.

(Page 131) Hategan goes into detail about surveillance and intelligence gathering methods used by Heritage Front. These included:

Cracking answering machine passwords
Using phone books and pretext phone calls to get addresses
Impersonating the targets
Impersonating journalists
Attending rallies in disguise
Using utility records and voting registries to get addresses
General stalking

Now, considering Diagolon’s “Road Rage Terror Tour” over the summer, can one see how it might be used to gather information on supporters?

(Page 161) Hategan talks about a complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission, which was designed to shut down the “Heritage Hotline” that had been in operation.

(Page 191) Hategan talks about the names and addresses of members that she’d handed over to authorities. She also laments that she picked up an additional criminal charge — s.319 (inciting hate). While rich “Nazis” would be able to delay Court matters for years, she’d have to answer for it.

(Page 210) Hategan was now gathering intelligence on international “hate groups”, all of which she would be turning over to authorities.

(Page 248) Hategan talks about being the star witness for the Canadian Human Rights Commission in their case against Heritage Front.

(Page 306) Hategan claims that the Government essentially whitewashed the operation, including the full scale of what Grant Bristow had been involved with. Bristow’s conduct amounted to harassment, intimidation, threatening and stalking of activists. He wasn’t charged with any of it.

There’s also a lot of personal backstory included, some of it relevant.

This is by no means the complete book, just some of the highlights. Hategan also comes across as very bitter that Bristow was placed in witness protection, while she was not. She reasons that her testimony directly led to people being locked up, while he didn’t.

In any event, this took up years of Hategan’s life. It’s inconceivable that she wasn’t aware (or at least very suspicious) of the rise of MacKenzie and Diagolon. There are simply too many parallels.

While it’s true that “podcast culture” wasn’t a thing in the 1990’s, the tactics used then eerily resemble what’s been going on today.

They All Had To Have Known Ahead Of Time

Back in January 2021, Hategan posted on Twitter some biographical information. An even earlier post (2017) has her bragging about “sending racists to jail”.

Even further back, in 2020, Hategan posted on Twitter that she had directly caused 3 white supremacists to go to jail. She also published that she had produced some 30 Affidavits for the police (actually, the Ontario Provincial Police) to help them with gun related crime.

Hategan had a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”.

Isn’t that what Jeremy MacKenzie stated he was interested in having?

So, why were there no questions about the HateGate Report that she co-authored? In fact, she’s claimed several times to have been the main author of it. Why then, would Diagolon members be celebrating the work of a police informant who would have them locked up for their views?

As an aside, Hategan threatened to sue Derek (Rants) Harrison over him including her in his (satire?) book called “Meme Kampf”. One would think that this would cause him to look a bit deeper into the people who supposedly “cleared” his organization. But apparently not. It takes effort to be this uninterested in the truth.

When the Report was released in September 2023, Hategan posted this online. While promoting this book, she quite openly stated that CSIS played a large role in creating Heritage Front.

One then has to ask the obvious question: why downplay or minimize the obvious connection that Diagolon could also be a Government honeypot? If it was done once, who says it couldn’t be again?

Misrepresenting Content Of 1,082 Page FOIPIP

Ever wonder why this “smoking gun” FOIPIP package is never released? Hategan bragged about how this was real investigative journalism. This was supposed to be the proof of gross police incompetence and coverup, remember?

Most likely, it’s because the full package doesn’t support their conclusions. Instead, a few cherry-picked emails are used as the basis of this conspiracy.

The FOIPIP request didn’t act for all records related “to the invocation of the Emergencies Act”. It just asked for records on Diagolon itself. From there, Sa’d and Hategan made the assumption that this was a complete record of everything that transpired.

So-called alternative media such as Viva Frei and Harrison Faulkner apparently never bothered to do any digging into the story. If they had, they’d have uncovered all kinds of holes. But it’s not just the mainstream press that can’t be trusted.

Questions for “Diagolon” members:

(1) Does it concern you at all that the primary author of the HateGate Report was a law enforcement asset? She cooperated with police over a long period of time.

(2) Does it concern you she was working for a CSIS honeypot?

(3) Are you at concerned about the reliability of your HateGate Report, considering Hategan has publicly stated that she wants to see racists jailed? And by “racists”, she means the kind of people who tune in to see the Raging Dissident.

(4) Does it concern you that Hategan would write a book outlining all this information, and people either never knew, or never cared?

(5) Do any of the parallels between Heritage Front and Diagolon alarm you?

Category: Dysgenics

Action4Canada Sued In Kelowna For Defamation

What About Bringing An Application To Strike?

What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?

Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?

Like this:

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Like this:

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Like this:

Private Member’s Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia For PROVINCIAL Frameworks

Like this: