Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

1. Important Links

https://www.omidyargroup.com/
https://luminategroup.com/
https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
https://au.reset.tech/
https://www.reset.tech/about/
https://www.reset.tech/people/
https://archive.is/AuwcW
https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

  • Democracy Fund
  • First Look Media
  • Flourish
  • Hopelab
  • Humanity United
  • Imaginable Futures
  • Luminate
  • Omidyar Network
  • Omidyar Network India
  • Ulupono Initiative

The Democracy Fund
The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

First Look Media
First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

Humanity United
Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Luminate
Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

Omidyar Network India
Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

The World Post
An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

What we do
We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
.
Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
.
We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

Pia Mancini
Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

Poppy Wood
As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
.
We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

Simon Goff
Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

Ben Scott
Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

Amit Singh
Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

Remember that proposed Digital Charter from 2019, in response to a shooting in New Zealand? Well, it’s finally come to Canada. Also, this sounds silly, but is DCIA a euphamism for “Dee CIA”?

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: hate speech laws, Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

3. Important Links

The Christchurch Call
Fact Sheet: Digital Charter Implementation Act
https://archive.is/0QioZ
Bill C-10: CRTC Amending Broadcast Act
Bill C-11 Introduced As HoC Legislation (November 2020)
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Mastercard’s Lobbying Information
Visa Canada’s Lobbying Information
American Express Canada’s Lobbying Information
PayPal’s Lobbying Information
GlaxoSmithKline’s Lobbying Information

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

Originally, the proposed “Digital Charter” was formed as part of the Christchurch Call, in response to a mass shooting in New Zealand on March 15, 2019. This was promoted as fighting violent extremism. However, the DC Implementation Act seems to be much more broadly applied.

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

What does the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 mean for me?
.
[A] Meaningful consent: Modernized consent rules would ensure that individuals have the plain-language information they need to make meaningful choices about the use of their personal information.
.
[B] Data mobility: To further improve their control, individuals would have the right to direct the transfer of their personal information from one organization to another. For example, individuals could direct their bank to share their personal information with another financial institution.
.
[C] Disposal of personal information and withdrawal of consent: The accessibility of information online makes it hard for individuals to control their online identity. The legislation would allow individuals to request that organizations dispose of personal information and, in most cases, permit individuals to withdraw consent for the use of their information.
.
[D] Algorithmic transparency: The CPPA contains new transparency requirements that apply to automated decision-making systems like algorithms and artificial intelligence. Businesses would have to be transparent about how they use such systems to make significant predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals. Individuals would also have the right to request that businesses explain how a prediction, recommendation or decision was made by an automated decision-making system and explain how the information was obtained.
.
[E] De-identified information: The practice of removing direct identifiers (such as a name) from personal information is becoming increasingly common, but the rules that govern how this information is then used are not clear. The legislation will clarify that this information must be protected and that it can be used without an individual’s consent only under certain circumstances.

All of these items sound perfectly reasonable on the surface. Who WOULDN’T want greater privacy and transparency? Reading a bit further on the webpage, it becomes a bit concerning.

Simplifying consent: In the digital economy, the use of personal information is often core to the delivery of a product or service, and consumers can reasonably expect that their information will be used for this purpose. Currently, organizations are required to seek consent for such uses, making privacy policies longer and less accessible and creating burden. The legislation would remove the burden of having to obtain consent when that consent does not provide any meaningful privacy protection.

Data for good: Greater data sharing and access between the public and private sectors can help to solve some of our most important challenges in fields such as public health, infrastructure and environmental protection. The legislation would allow businesses to disclose de-identified data to public entities (under certain circumstances) for socially beneficial purposes.

Recognition of codes of practice and certification systems: To help organizations understand their obligations under the CPPA and demonstrate compliance, the legislation would allow organizations to ask the Privacy Commissioner to approve codes of practice and certification systems that set out rules for how the CPPA applies in certain activities, sectors or business models.

So the requirement to obtain consent can be removed if the consent “would not provide any meaningful privacy protection”? What standards would be applied to determine if it’s meaningful? Or would it all be subjective?

Greater sharing of data between public and private sectors? Such as what? Bank records? Health information? Political beliefs? And coupled with watering down the need for consent, that’s unsettling.

It would allow also allow for private organizations to contact the Privacy Commissioner and ask to have certain practices permitted. Interesting.

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

Exceptions to Requirement for Consent
Business Operations
Business activities
18 (1) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2) and
(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and
(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.
,
List of activities
(2) Subject to the regulations, the following activities are business activities for the purpose of subsection (1):
(a) an activity that is necessary to provide or deliver a product or service that the individual has requested from the organization;
(b) an activity that is carried out in the exercise of due diligence to prevent or reduce the organization’s commercial risk;
(c) an activity that is necessary for the organization’s information, system or network security;
(d) an activity that is necessary for the safety of a product or service that the organization provides or delivers;
(e) an activity in the course of which obtaining the individual’s consent would be impracticable because the organization does not have a direct relationship with the individual; and
(f) any other prescribed activity.
.
Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Think that’s bad? It’s about to get even worse. More exceptions to the requirement for consent are written into Bill C-11. It’s like the Do-Not-Call lists about 15-20 years ago. Is there anything that doesn’t make the list of exceptions?

Information produced in employment, business or profession
23 An organization may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was produced by the individual in the course of their employment, business or profession and the collection, use or disclosure is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced.
.
Employment relationship — federal work, undertaking or business
24 An organization that operates a federal, work or business may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their consent if
(a) the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and the individual in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business; and
(b) the organization has informed the individual that the personal information will be or may be collected, used or disclosed for those purposes.
.
Disclosure to lawyer or notary
25 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a lawyer or, in Quebec, a lawyer or notary, who is representing the organization.

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

An organization can share a person’s personal information –without their knowledge or consent — if they deem it necessary for their business functions. They can also share the data of 3rd parties, if they don’t have a direct business relationship with that person.

Organizations can provide (sell?) data to research and marketing firms, with the caveat being that items that would identify a person must be removed. However, even with that, people can be re-identified from partial profiles.

Employers and Governments can also share a person’s private information without their knowledge or consent if it’s regarded as needed in their business operations. What else?

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.
.
Records of historic or archival importance
36 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to an institution whose functions include the conservation of records of historic or archival importance, if the disclosure is made for the purpose of such conservation.
.
Disclosure after period of time
37 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent after the earlier of
(a) 100 years after the record containing the information was created, and
(b) 20 years after the death of the individual.
.
Journalistic, artistic or literary purposes
38 An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
.
Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

As long as it’s claimed that the information was needed for research, historical work, some vaguely-defined social benefit, personal information can be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or consent. They do mention stripping the information from details that would lead to the identity of the person, but it’s still easy to reestablish who it was.

“Impractical to obtain consent” refers to companies disclosing person data not of THEIR customers, but the customers of other people. In fact, an obvious loophole is not to do any of this yourself, but simply to partner with another organization who can do the dirty work.

And after 20 years after a person’s death, information can be disclosed anyway. No reason or pretense is needed to pretend to justify it.

Now we get to disclosures to Government Institutions. Presumably, this was the original content considered with the Digital Charter.

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

Disclosures to Government Institutions
.
Administering law
43 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering federal or provincial law.
.
Law enforcement — request of government institution
44 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law.
.
Contravention of law — initiative of organization
45 An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a contravention of federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed.
.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
46 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to the government institution referred to in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section.
.
Request by government institution — national security, defence or international affairs
47 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).
.
Initiative of organization — national security, defence or international affairs
48 (1) An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).

The Government may collect personal information without your knowledge or consent if it believes (or claims to believe), that it’s done for a legitimate purpose, or may help with the investigation of Government affairs.

Furthermore, institutions can, on their own free will, simply choose to hand over personal information without knowledge or consent. All that is required is a vague standard that they believe a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

Getting back to the topic of the Christchurch Call: the original purpose of the proposed Digital Charter was to combat online extremism, before violence broke out. Under this Bill, can Governments simply seize data, or can companies just provide it on a whim? Could having incorrect opinions be viewed as a public security risk?

Could telling the truth about the Covid-19 hoax be grounds for detaining or de-platforming people, under the guise of “public health and safety”?

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

Entering “Digital Charter” into the Lobbing Registry website flags 84 hits: 80 registrations, and 4 communications reports. Let’s take a look into that.

The 4 communications were with Facebook Canada, and took place between April 15, 2020, and December 17, 2020. They involved: Facebook, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Policy Advisor on Canada’s Digital Charter.

Small aside: Official Opposition Leader, Erin O’Toole. was a lobbyist for Facebook when he worked for the law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Could explain why he’s silent on this issue.

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

Want to do banking of rely on credit for your business or personal life? It may become much harder if these institutions refuse to associate with you, for whatever reason.

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

Seems pretty strange that GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), is involved in discussions concerning the Digital Charter. On the surface, it also looks like a conflict of interest.

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

The idea of a “Digital Charter” was shoved onto the Canadian public, under the pretense that it would be used to stop violent and unstable people from committing serious crimes. Instead, it seems like an open invitation to throw out privacy protections altogether.

It’s quite stunning the reasons and ways that personal information can be shared “without knowledge or consent” of the people involved. Far from ensuring privacy protections, it codifies the right to share others’ data. The reasons for doing so are also (intentionally?) defined in very vague ways. This ensures that loopholes will always exist.

Posted on

Who’s Pulling Erin O’Toole’s Strings?

So who is Erin O’Toole, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada? What does he believe, and what does he stand for? Turns out, the answers are pretty bad. The CPC is just a parody of an opposition party (6uild 6ack 6etter is now 6uild 6ack “stronger“).

1. Important Links

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1351658366406438914
https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
O’Toole Supports Even More Draconian Measures
Walied Soliman, Sick Kids Toronto Director
Walied Soliman Wins Global Citizen Of The Year Award
O’Toole Lobbied By NCCM, Anti-Free Speech
O’Toole Lobbied By CIJA, Anti-Free Speech
Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud
Erin O’Toole Pushing FIPA In House Of Commons
Full Text Of FIPA With China
CANZUK International Website
James Skinner’s LinkedIn Page
CPC On The Climate Change Agenda
O’Toole, Private Member’s Bill C-405
Lobbying By SNC Lavalin For Deferred Pros. Agreement
Aga Khan Lobbies O’Toole For Funding
https://twitter.com/DerekSloanCPC/status/1351314995133501443
Derek Sloan’s Petition e-2961

2. O’Toole Chief Of Staff Walied Soliman

Walied Soliman, O’Toole’s Chief of Staff, has been a Director of Sick Kids Hospital Toronto since 2012. Sick Kids is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. One has to wonder if that is why O’Toole is so supportive of restrictive measures and lockdowns in general.

Soliman was awarded “Global Citizen Of the Year” in 2019. He’s also part of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which is pushing hate speech laws in Canada.

3. Ties To Anti-Free Speech Lobby

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, (NCCM) and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, (CIJA), are just 2 groups working to rewrite the laws in Canada on hate speech. While this is marketed in a harmless manner, the devil’s in the details about what may be included.

4. Ties To Vaccine/Pandemic Industry

Why is O’Toole so vaccination happy? It could be the rampant pharmaceutical lobbying that has been going on, of all major parties. To the lay observer, it looks like he is fulfilling the wishes of special interests, instead of those of Canadians.

This is true with GAVI as well, which is also Gates funded. GAVI and Crestview Strategy lobbied the Office of the Official Opposition as well. At the time, this was Andrew Scheer. However, it seems doubtful that O’Toole’s stance will be any different.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-5-crestview-strategy-the-lobbying-firm-advocating-for-gavis-vaxx-agenda/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/lobbyist-for-glaxosmithkline-astrazeneca-maker-sits-on-conservative-partys-national-council/
(c) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-11-cpc-national-secretary-lobbied-for-big-pharma-to-get-easier-access-to-your-medical-data/
(d) https://canucklaw.ca/pfizer-lobbyists-claim-responsibility-for-installing-ford-and-otoole-into-current-positions/
(e) https://canucklaw.ca/president-of-cpc-national-council-robert-batherson-starts-up-own-lobbying-firm/

O’Toole’s associates are also pharma lobbyists. But that wouldn’t have anything to do with his current positions.

5. Heenan Blaikie, Desmarais, Facebook

Before getting into Parliament, O’Toole worked for the law firm Heenan Blaikie (which is now defunct). It’s the same firm that Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked for. The Desmarais Family also had connections the the company.

In his duties, O’Toole also acted as a lobbyist for Facebook, trying to influence the Government of Stephen Harper — which he later became part of.

6. Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud

O’Toole’s campaign was aided by Jeff Ballingall, and a group called Canada Proud. This is an NGO that tries to promote “conservative” politicians and movements. There are Provincial efforts as well, including Ontario Proud, which helped install Doug Ford into power. O’Toole was helped along by social media pros who got him more attention.

Side note: Ballingall works for The Post Millennial, which is owned by Matthew Azrieli. He is the grandson of the late David Azrieli, media mogul and billionaire.

7. FIPA, Selling Out Canada To China

Upon entering the House of Commons, O’Toole worked as a Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade. His first major gig was pushing FIPA, an agreement which sold Canadian sovereignty to China for a minimum of 31 years. Even after all this time, there’s no indication O’Toole regrets his involvement. See this earlier review on FIPA.

8. CANZUK, Open Borders Agreement

CANZUK is an acronym (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom). The group, CANZUK International, is in a compaign for a treaty that would open borders between those countries. More countries could eventually be added. James Skinner, the head of the group, also worked for the CPC, and it looks like CANZUK is in fact their creation.

O’Toole is on record supporting CANZUK, and future expansion as well. He gives a variety of reasons, depending on what the circumstances are.

9. Open Borders Immigration Agenda

Would O’Toole and the Conservatives reduce the hordes of people entering Canada each year? Would they do something about the large numbers of students and temporary workers who have pathways to extend? It seems most unlikely.

The true scale of immigration into Canada has been covered extensively on this site, so no need to rehash it here. But fair to say that O’Toole either lowballs it, or has no clue whatsoever.

10. Supporting Climate Change Agenda

Ottawa, ON – Dan Albas, Conservative Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, released the following statement regarding Justin Trudeau’s plan to triple the Carbon Tax:

“Fighting climate change at home and around the world is an important goal that takes work. Canadians agree on the importance of protecting our environment and natural spaces, and it is an issue that our Party and Leader are passionate about.

“It’s shameful that the Liberals failed to properly consult provinces on their plan raise the Carbon Tax. The environment is an area of shared jurisdiction and Canada’s Conservatives will respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories by scrapping Trudeau’s Carbon Tax. If provinces want to use market mechanisms, other forms of carbon pricing, or regulatory measures, that is up to them.

“This week, Conservatives put forward a motion to stop the Liberals from raising taxes during the pandemic. Not only did the Liberals vote against our motion, but they are now raising the Carbon Tax even higher. This increase will mean that Canadians will pay more for groceries, home heating, and add up to 37.57 cents per litre to the cost of gas.

A moment of clarification here: O’Toole and the CPC don’t actually take issue with the climate change agenda itself. Instead, they limit their criticisms specifically to Carbon taxes.

The disingenuous nature of the Provinces “challenging” the Carbon taxes, while supporting the climate change agenda has also been covered here.

11. Weakening Protections On Worker Pensions

Although it ultimately went nowhere, O’Toole previously introduced Private Member’s Bill C-405, which would make it easier for bankrupt companies to transfer employee pensions instead of paying them out. Wonder where he got that idea from.

12. SNC Lavalin, Deferred Prosecution

Ever wonder why Conservatives were so tepid on SNC Lavalin getting their deferred prosecution agreement? Could be because they were also lobbied for it. Seems that “tough on crime” has its limits.

13. Aga Khan Foundation Canada

Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is a registered charity that supports social development programs in Asia and Africa. As a member of the Aga Khan Development Network, AKFC works to address the root causes of poverty: finding and sharing effective and lasting solutions that help improve the quality of life for poor communities. Our programs focus on four core areas: health, education, rural development and building the capacity of non-governmental organizations.

In the year 2018, the Aga Khan Foundation received roughly $32 million from Canadian taxpayers. It’s a little disturbing to see Conservatives lobbied by this group as well, especially considering the grief they gave Trudeau over his winter vacation.

14. O’Toole Never Mentions Central Banking

From time to time, O’Toole will make noises about how Conservatives are better managers of money than Liberals. However, he never talks about private central banking, which is probably the biggest scam in history. He was in Parliament during the Bank of Canada case (so he presumably is familiar with the issue). But he will never talk about it openly.

15. Why Throw Derek Sloan Under The Bus?

Derek Sloan, a CPC MP, faces expulsion from his party for accepting a donation of $131 from a so-called “white supremacist”. Is that the real reason for this, or was O’Toole pressured by his pharma handlers after Sloan sponsored? Petition e-2961 referred to these vaccines as “human experimentation”.

Obviously O’Toole knows for sure, but the claim of a “racist donation” seems like a thinly veiled attempt to dump a politician who is actually critical of the vaccination agenda.

So who’s pulling Erin O’Toole’s strings? It seems everyone except the Canadian public.

Posted on

Who’s Pulling Steven Guilbeault’s Strings? (Part 2: Anti-Free Speech, Privacy)

Last year, Steven Guilbeault (rightfully) took a lot of criticism for the recommendation that media outlets be forced to obtain licenses. He later backtracked somewhat, claiming that news outlets would be exempt. Now, he’s back, pushing hate speech laws.

A disclaimer: it’s entirely possible (likely), that there are groups pushing for these laws that are not listed publicly. However, all that is listed is documented information.

Worth noting: the original intent of the bill was on “hate speech”. Sending pornography, or lewd images was just an afterthought. Still, this does raise privacy concerns, not just ones for free speech.

See Part 1 for Guilbeault’s ties to the eco-movement.

To begin with, let’s address the elephant in the room: hate speech laws can, and often are used to silence legitimate concerns and criticisms. Worse, they are applied unevenly. When very different groups with different cultures and value are brought together, how it operates is fair discussion. What will be expected, what compromises will be made, and how to settle differences must be addressed.

Regardless of whether a person prefers a more assimilationist approach, or is more libertarian, hard questions have to be asked. When such questions cannot be asked — because of hate speech laws — it doesn’t erase the concerns, but simply erodes public trust.

Banning valid discussion with false accusations of racism, or false claims of violence, does nothing to advance open discourse. Instead, it’s used to gaslight and prevent necessary discussion.

Is this a call to violence, or to condone violence? Certainly not. But all too often, ideas and violence are wrongly conflated.

1. Hate Crime Hoaxes Undermine Public Trust

Now Toronto Police say the alleged attack on an 11-year-old girl wearing a hijab last week was a hoax. In other words, the hijabi girl and her brother simply made up the story.

We still don’t know enough whether this incident was orchestrated to further entrench the sense of victimhood among Canada’s Muslims or if it was a tale made up by the 11-year-old girl to cover up some other incident.

Khawlah Noman isn’t the first Muslim girl to pull off such a hoax, but she surely must be the youngest to do so.

Another valid question must be asked. Before passing censorship laws to combat hate speech and related crimes, how many incidents actually happened, and how many are hoaxes? Before considering such laws, it’s important to know the full scale of the problem. However, some outlets continue with the narrative, even when hoaxes are exposed.

2. Canadian Parliament On Online Hate

Check this page for information on a Parliamentary study in Canada concerning online hate. Witnesses were called to give more insight into the topic. While there was a lot of reasonable discussion, one problem remains: it’s far too easy to demonize people by CLAIMING that certain topics are hate and violence.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Canadian Human Rights Act and Online Hate, respecting the repealed section 13 of the CHRA and opening the Act for legislative review.
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program, Regulation
Security & Targeted Communities: Advocating for policies to enhance the security and safety of Canadian Muslim communities and other at-risk communities given the rise in hate crimes, including the Security Infrastructure Program; countering white supremacist groups
.
Policies or Program
Anti-racism: Advocating for policy initiatives in the Department of Canadian Heritage related to combating Islamophobia and discrimination, including the updating of Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism (CAPAR); Supporting various programs to promote diversity and inclusion in Canada.
Religion: Advocating for the protection of freedom of religion in Canada and with respect to the reasonable accommodation of religious observances.

One of the groups lobbying Guilbeault is the National Council of Canadian Muslims. They claim that “white supremacists” are causing a hateful environment, and that more diversity and inclusion is needed. Of course, ask how THEY accommodate minorities, and that’s hate speech.

Also noteworthy: Walied Soliman, Erin O’Toole’s Chief of Staff, is a member of the NCCM. He’s on record as supporting their activities.

4. CIJA, Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

Subject Matter Details
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit
–Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream.
-Activities include:
•Collect examples of how antisemitism presents itself in the context of COVID19
•Create website landing page lor campaign to highlight the campaign’s purpose and goals
•Prepare social media calendar for the duration of the campaign
•Prepare Facebook ads, prepare toolkit to distribute to partner organizations to promote the campaign
•Program content for campaign, run Facebook ads, and ensure participation from various cultural groups; and
•Report to government and stakeholders on the outcome of the campaign. The Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP) supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance that will support democracy and social cohesion in Canada in a digital world by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats to our country’s democracy and social cohesion.
-Provide economic support for the charitable and not-for-profit sector through a direct granting program. Donations from Canadians should be incentivized through a temporary enhancement of the charitable giving tax credit, or through a donor matching program, whereby the government matches donations from Canadians.
-Public Security threats to the safety and security of the Jewish community of Canada and the extension of funding of capital costs and staff training for security of communities at risk
-The project ‘United Against Online Hate’ aims to develop a national coalition with numerous targeted communities to actively combat online hate, following recommendations from the study conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have been granted $141,000 for the government’s current fiscal year (ending March 31 2021). We were also awarded $31,800 for the year April 1 2021 to March 31 2022.

The page on lobbying information is very long, but well worth a read. A lot of effort has clearly gone into writing and updating this.

5. Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting

Subject Matter Details
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Canadian Heritage Committee study of online hate and illegal content and promised legislation
Possible amendment to Section 19 of the Income Tax Act respecting the deductibility of digital advertising on non-Canadian platforms
Review of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts with respect to the promotion of Canadian culture and democracy.
.
Policies or Program, Regulation
Broadcasting policy: regulation, funding, licensing, Canadian programming, media concentration and restrictions on foreign ownership, equal enforcement of the Broadcasting Act, application of the Broadcasting Act to non-traditional media, support for public broadcasting, independence of CBC/Radio Canada and other related governance concerns, protecting Canadian content on air and online.

This lobbying actually covers a number of topics, but online hate is one of them.

6. YWCA, Others Get Federal Grants

October 20, 2020 – Toronto, Ontario
.
The Government of Canada is committed to taking action against online hate and preventing the promotion of racism and violence. Today, the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Honourable Bill Blair, announced $759,762 to YWCA Canada for their project Block Hate: Building Resilience against Online Hate Speech.

The four-year project will examine hate speech trends across Canada and work with experts to develop online tools and digital literacy training for young Canadians aged 14 to 30 across ten communities.

The YWCA will bring together partners from digital industry, civil society, government, and academia to better understand online hate in Canada, support those targeted by hate speech, inform technical solutions to online hate, hate crime, and radicalization to violence, and increase community resilience.

The YWCA received a grant from the Federal Government, but it is hardly alone in that. Fighting online hate and hate speech appears to be a growth industry.

One also has to ask how such hate speech regulations would be enforced? What information would internet providers, or cell phone companies have to provide? What would the process and limits for that be? What privacy protections would be in place?

7. Vic Toews, Online Privacy, Bill C-30

Since the proposal did mention punishing of sharing images (even as an afterthought), let’s address this. It was in 2012 that “Conservative” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews tried to bring in Bill C-30, which could force online providers to hand over private information without a warrant. Toews gaslighted privacy concerns as people “siding with the child pornographers”. While the Bill died in 1st Reading, could something like this happen again?

8. What Are Impacts On Free Speech? Privacy?

What will this bill look like, and what are the impacts? Until the legislation is tabled, we won’t know for sure. Even then, amendments are quite likely, as are court challenges.

This shouldn’t have to be repeated, but it is. Being critical of “hate speech” for being overreaching does not equate to supporting hate or violence. All too often, false accusations of racism, hate and bigotry are used to silence legitimate concerns and questions.

Vic Toews vilified critics of warrantless searches as “pedophile sympathizers”. Could this iteration lead to critics being smeared as “Nazi supporters”? Will a provision for warrantless searches be slipped in?

It’s also possible that such legislation will be scrapped altogether. After all, Guilbeault supported mandatory media licensing only last year, but backed down under heavy pressure. This is an important story to keep an eye on.

https://twitter.com/s_guilbeault/status/1351219226711912454
https://twitter.com/s_guilbeault/status/1351219225302618117
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Canadian Parliament Discusses Online Hate
(Audio) Testimony Into Online Hate
Toronto Sun On Hate Crime Hoax
National Post Shrugs Off Hate Crime Hoax
National Council Of Canadian Muslims Lobbying
Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Lobbying
Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting Lobbying
YWCA Receives $760,000 Anti-Hate Grant
Various Initiatives/Grants From Ottawa In Recent Years
Bill C-30, Vic Toews, Online Privacy, Pornography

Posted on

Media Subsidies To Counter Online “Misinformation”, Groups Led By Political Operatives

In July 2019, the Federal Government announced it would be funding many initiatives to counter “online disinformation”. This is 6 months PRIOR to the alleged pandemic that took place. Again, this was set up IN ADVANCE of 2020. And it’s strange just how many of the leaders of these groups have political connections.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. MSM in Canada (and elsewhere), has been largely obedient to the official stories since they are subsidized to do so, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Important Links

Press Release: Gov’t Funds “Online Disinformation” Initiatives In 2019
https://archive.is/cVTQ0
Groups Receiving Tax Dollars In “Disinfo” Initiatives
https://archive.is/VS3Fm
Emergency Funds Available $500M (CV Funds)
https://archive.is/F9P5F
Canada’s International Engagement Strategy
https://archive.is/zR6yp
Public Policy Forum (Democracy)
https://archive.is/lQw4j
Peter Donolo’s LinkedIn Profile
https://archive.is/DXsbT
Kathleen Monk’s LinkedIn Profile
Robert Asselin’s LinkedIn Page
Elizabeth Dubois’ LinkedIn Page
Rachel Curran’s LinkedIn Page
Francis LeBlanc’s LinkedIn Page
Megan Beretta’s LinkedIn Page
Amy Giroux’s LinkedIn Page
Terrence Clifford’s LinkedIn Page
News Media Canada Governance

3. Anti-Disinfo Just Another Gov’t Program

News release
GATINEAU, July 2, 2019
.
A strong democracy relies on Canadians having access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information so that they can form opinions, hold governments and individuals to account, and participate in public conversations.

The Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions, today announced several citizen-focused activities that will build citizens’ critical thinking and preparedness against online disinformation, and other online harms. She made this announcement on behalf of the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism. This announcement is part of the Government of Canada’s plan to safeguard our democratic processes from threats of interference as we approach the 2019 General Election.

On January 30, Minister Gould announced funding of $7 million for citizen-focused activities under Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative to support eligible organizations using four existing programs: the Canada History Fund, Youth Take Charge, Exchanges Canada and the Canada Periodical Fund. The Initiative promotes civic, news and digital media literacy through third-party educational activities and programming to help citizens become resilient against online harms.

Strengthening Canadians’ resilience to online disinformation
.
Canadian Heritage will also invest $19.4 million over four years in a new Digital Citizen Research Program to help Canadians understand online disinformation and its impact on Canadian society, and to build the evidence base that will be used to identify possible actions and future policy-making in this space. This investment will also enable Canada to take part in international multi-stakeholder engagement aimed at building consensus and developing guiding principles on diversity of content online to strengthen citizen resilience to online disinformation.

Officially, this program against “disinformation” was set in place with the 2019 election in mind. However, that seems strange, given the election itself was just 4 months away.

That said, the timing lines up pretty well if, let’s say, a pandemic were to break out, and Canadians started questioning how real it was.

It’s worth pointing out that this is by no means the first act of financial support the Government (or, really, taxpayers), had shelled out for.

4. Groups That Are Receiving The Money

GROUP YEAR AMOUNT
Agence Science-Presse 2019-2020 $129,345
Apathy is Boring 2018-2019 $100,000
Apathy is Boring 2019-2020 $340,000
Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada 2019-2020 $460,000
Canadian News Media Association 2019-2020 $484,300
CIVIX 2018-2019 $275,000
CIVIX 2019-2020 $400,000
Encounters with Canada 2018-2019 $100,000
Quebec Professional Journalists 2019-2020 $202,570
Global Vision 2019-2020 $260,000
Historica Canada 2019-2020 $250,000
Institute for Canadian Citizenship 2019-2020 $250,000
Journalists for Human Rights 2019-2020 $250,691
Magazines Canada 2019-2020 $63,000
McGill University 2019-2020 $1,196,205
MediaSmarts 2019-2020 $650,000
New Canadian Media 2019-2020 $66,517
Ryerson University 2019-2020 $290,250
Samara Centre for Democracy 2019-2020 $59,200
Sask Weekly Newspapers Ass’n 2019-2020 $70,055
Simon Fraser University 2019-2020 $175,000
Vubble Inc. Unboxed project 2019-2020 $299,000

So, who’s actually getting the money. Here are some of the groups listed by the Canadian Government, whose goals are to counter online “disinformation”.

In later sections, let’s take a look at who is actually running some of these organizations. The results, and the connections, may be quite surprising.

5. Emergency Support Fund For Organizations

On May 8, 2020, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the details of a new COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations. The $500 million Emergency Support Fund provides additional temporary relief to support cultural, heritage and sport organizations and help them plan for the future. The Fund will help maintain jobs and support business continuity for organizations whose viability has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ottawa announced in the Spring of 2020 that it would help fund media outlets that had been harmed by this “pandemic”. That’s nice: crash the economy, and then hand out money with the expectation of favourable coverage.

6. International Engagement Strategy

  • International meeting at Stanford University, California
  • Canada-France joint declaration
  • International meeting in Ottawa

The Canadian Government’s strategy to control the media is not limited to being within the borders. There are a number of international initiatives that are going on as well.

7. Public Policy Forum

The Digital Democracy Project is a multi-year project to analyze and respond to the increasing amounts of disinformation and hate in the digital public sphere. It will monitor digital and social media in real time, coordinate with international research and policy development projects, and develop public policy responses to counter these threats to democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Public Policy Forum President & CEO Edward Greenspon and recently appointed Max Bell School of Public Policy professor Taylor Owen announced the launch of a multi-year project to analyze and respond to the increasing amounts of disinformation and hate in the digital public sphere.

The Digital Democracy Project (DDP) will commission research and journalism to gain a greater understanding of how disinformation is growing in the digital ecosystem. It will monitor digital and social media in real time, coordinate with international research and policy development projects, and develop public policy responses to counter these threats to democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Interesting how subjective the terms “hate” and “misinformation” can be. In fact, the meanings of these words can — and often are — misconstrued in order to shut down legitimate discussion on important topics. Will this research just be more research into how to go about doing it?

8. Peter Donolo: Longtime Liberal Strategist

Peter Donolo is a longtime Liberal operative. He was Chretien’s Communications Director, he worked in the Office of the Official Opposition for Michael Ignatieff, and other political roles. Ignatieff, incidently, is now a Vice-President of Soros’ Open Society Group.

Donolo is also now a Board Member at CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights. He has ties to the Liberals, who are also funding various initiatives to counter misinformation.

9. Kathleen Monk: Longtime NDP Operative

Kathleen Monk was involved with the Federal NDP (under Jack Layton), and is part of the Broadbent Institute – named after ex-NDP Leader Ed Broadbent.

She is now a Board Member at CIVIX.

10. Robert Asselin: Ex-Trudeau Operative

Robert Asselin worked in the Ministry of Finance from November 2015 to November 2017, under Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau. He also worked at Blackberry.

Currently, he is a Board Member of CIVIX.

11. Elizabeth Dubois: Assistant To Liberal MP

>

Elizabeth Dubois was an assistant for Diane Hall Findley, who was a Member of Parliament. She also worked as a climate change program manager.

Now, Dubois is a Board Member at CIVIX.

12. Rachel Curran: Harper Operative

Rachel Curran is a public policy manager at Facebook Canada. She also spent years in the Office of the Prime Minister, when Harper was in office. She’s part of CIVIX now.

13. Francis LeBlanc: Ex-Liberal MP

Francis LeBlanc is a former Liberal M.P., and held various Government roles after that. He is now Board Member at CIVIX.

By the way, and relation to Dominic LeBlanc, head of the Privy Council? He previously proposed passing laws to combat “misinformation” related to coronavirus.

14. Megan Beretta: Ties To Several Groups

Megan Beretta has worked for CIVIX, Institute for Canadian Citizenship, Canadian Digital Service, and studied at Oxford Internet Institute.

15. Giroux, Clifford: Ex-Mulroney Operatives

Amy Giroux, who is now a Director Global Vision, was a political attache for Brian Mulroney’s Government from 1988 until 1993. Terrence Clifford, the Founder, was a Member of Parliament for Mulroney.

16. News Media Canada On Disinformation

News Media Canada will design, develop and promote a public awareness program entitled “SPOT Fake News Online”. The project will provide Canadians of all ages with straightforward tools to encourage them to critically assess digital media and identify misleading or defamatory disinformation

News Media Canada is supposed to be developing a program to combat misinformation online. Problem is, the Directors all come from mainstream outlets, who are heavily subsidized by the Government, or rather, taxpayers. There is a conflict of interest in claiming to be the leader in truth seeking.

17. Politics Mixing With Media Fact Checking

The examples above are not exhaustive, but they do show an interesting pattern: many of these taxpayer funded groups who are supposed to fight “misinformation” are run by people with political ties. This seems to be an obvious conflict of interest.

Yes, it’s an overused cliche, but this is a case of putting the fox in charge of monitoring the hen house.

Posted on

CV #46(B): So-Called “Journalist” Mark Slapinski Wants Person He Doesn’t Agree With Jailed

Canada has reached a new low. A self-identified “independent journalist” named Mark Slapinski has called for someone to be imprisoned for having different views. But don’t worry, it’s only in the name of safety.

1. Not A Personal Defense Of Saccoccia

To add in a disclaimer: this article is not about personally defending Chris Saccoccia (a.k.a. Chris Sky). He is obnoxious, looks goofy, and overall, is difficult to take seriously. And he may very well be attempting to co-opt real resistance. Nonetheless, he does have his free speech rights. These rights are especially important in light of blatant lies, gaslighting, and lawfare that we experience.

2. Mark Slapinski Started Actual Petition

Chris Sky has become infamous for leading the anti-mask movement in Toronto, as well as spreading inaccurate and anti-scientific information about COVID19 on Social Media.

Chris Sky was recently seen breaking into Adamson BBQ as an act of “united non-compliance” with a group of followers. This escalation in tactics from Mr. Sky is a danger to public health, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Chris Sky has been charged by police before, but it appears those charges have not deterred him from spreading disinformation and putting people’s lives in danger.

If Sky continues this behaviour, COVID rates will likely continue to rise, and extend the length of the lockdown. His anti-vaccine rhetoric will likely delay a lifting of COVID restrictions, due to him contributing to “vaccine hesitancy”.

The best way to send a message to anti-maskers is to put their leader in jail.
.
Sign the petition. Let’s put Chris Sky behind bars!
.
Started by Toronto Today

Now, who is Mark Slapinski?
Here is some information he provides on his LinkedIn page.

At first, it’s difficult to believe this is real. Mark Slapinski is a journalist, or at least he “identifies” as one. However, he openly calls for someone with a different opinion to be locked up. Aside from the obvious cognitive dissonance, Slapinski seems oblivious to the idea that it is exactly that mentality that could one day see HIM shut down and jailed.

It’s unclear whether Slapinski is a plant being used by the government to promote censorship, or if he is just a useful idiot. Either way, this needs to be called out.

In the petition, Slapinski drops his real goal. He wants to silence the “anti-maskers” by putting Chris Saccoccia/Sky in jail. This is a deliberate attempt to shut down views he disagrees with. Never mind that Sky doesn’t speak for the people as a whole — most find him distasteful.

Interesting that Slapinsky uses the phrase “vaccine hesitancy”. Outside of Government and NGO circles, it’s rarely heard. It refers to people’s reluctance (for whatever reason), to be vaccinated. And Slapinski makes it clear he wants people to get it.

Never mind that this “pandemic” is grossly overblown, and is being used to implement a larger social agenda. Slapinski is either completely ignorant of all of this (and has done no research), or is willfully complicit in deceiving the public.

Slapinski would do a far greater public service if he spent his time researching and fact checking the claims and predictions the Government makes. The official story falls apart under any real scrutiny.

3. Soros Funded Change.Org Petitions

It seems Slapinski has filed several petitions with change.org. And while he calls for Black Lives Matter people to be freed, he wants to lock up people who aren’t violent. Pick a lane. Also, it’s oddly amusing the never ending attempts to gaslight whites by using the “Nazi” logo.

At least these are theoretically possible, unlike the current petition to have someone jailed. Someone needs to tell him that’s not how the law works. Police respond to complaints filed, not petitions.

4. Censorship, Social Media Collusion Here Now

See 2:30 in the Tam/Trudeau video. Tam openly admits that there is social media collusion to: (a) take down media that contradicts the narrative; (b) direct people to “trusted” sites; (c) demonetize accounts that don’t play along; and (d) manipulate search algorithms to make them harder to find. The Canadian media doesn’t call this out.

Social media outlets already collude with governments to promote the pro-vaccine narrative, and it’s no accident so many outlets in Canada are subsidized. Governments also have floated the idea of “misinformation” laws to criminally penalize people who contradict the official stories.

At best, Slapinski seems to be aware of none of this, and is blindly parroting back Government talking points. At worst, he is actively trying to censor, shut down (and jail) critics.

Again, none of this is to defend Saccoccia/Sky himself — who does more harm than good to the resistance — but to defend the principle of free speech.

5. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.