Private Member’s Bill C-250: Prison Time For Holocaust Denial

A Private Member’s Bill, Bill C-250, is circulating in the House of Commons. If passed, it would make Holocaust denial (or downplaying the Holocaust), punishable by up to 2 years in prison. There is also a provision included that would allow for the forfeiture of assets if they were used in the commission.

This appears to apply to public forums, and not in private conversations.

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) The portion of subsection 319(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1)
(3) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with any modifications that end the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

The Bill was introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Kevin Waugh. It will be interesting to see what happens. Historically, Private Member’s Bills typically don’t go anywhere. It’s quite rare to see one that actually receives Royal Assent.

There is also the procedural issue that any prosecution (under the Bill’s current form), would need approval from the Attorney General.

It seems that Waugh has been contacted recently by CIJA. Clamping down on “hate speech” is very high up on their national agenda. They also focus on internet regulation more broadly.

The CPC also proudly brags about this:

Ottawa, ON — Today, Kevin Waugh, Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Grasswood, introduced his Private Members’ Bill, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition – promotion of antisemitism).

Conservatives are committed to ending the scourge of antisemitism in Canada and we believe all Canadians should feel safe and welcome in our communities.

From early 1941 until spring 1945, six million Jewish children, women, and men were murdered in a state-sponsored genocide we now remember as the Holocaust. Holocaust distortion, denial, and antisemitism must be confronted with the strongest opposition and condemnation.

This legislation would make Holocaust denial, one of the main indicators of antisemitism and radicalization, illegal in Canada.

“Ignorance fuels intolerance so we must continue to teach the truths of the past,” said Waugh. “Education is the safeguard of history. We must face history with courage and boldly call out and confront intolerance wherever it exists. Passage of this bill protects the truth.”

Strange that a party that claims to support free speech also is in favour of jailing people for having the wrong viewpoints. (Archive here)

We’ll have to see how things progress in the near future.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

Kulvinder Gill’s Frivolous And Vexatious Claim Dismissed As A SLAPP

“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”

“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart

A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.

Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.

The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).

In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.

To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.

A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure

There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.

  • Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
  • Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
  • Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defense
  • Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
  • Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process

Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.

In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.

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

Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).

It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:

  1. the proceeding has substantial merit, and
  2. the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
  3. the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.

The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.

Justification
.
22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges

Fair comment
.
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Fair comment
.
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.

Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
.
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.

It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.

Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?

In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.

The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.

The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.

What About Costs For The Defendants?

In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.

There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.

It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.

The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.

What Exactly Started All Of This?

In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.

These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.

One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.

Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.

After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.

This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.

If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.

(1) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(2) Gill & Lamba Defamation Lawsuit
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-lawsuit-thrown-out-after-anti-vaccine-doctors-sue-over-challenges-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doctor-who-said-canada-doesnt-need-covid-vaccine-calls-online-critics-hyenas-in-6-8m-libel-suit

China Trolls Trudeau Over Violent Crackdown On Ottawa Protests

This would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous. China is trying to take the high ground when it comes to respecting the rights of its citizens. Trudeau is also being mocked for freezing the accounts of his political opponents, while he pretends to be an advocate for democracy. After all, Trudeau is well known for his love of China’s basic dictatorship.

Okay, there’s more to the article than just that.
As for an update on the so-called national emergency:

There’s something pretty screwy about this: one human rights abuser mocking another. Nevertheless, China has (rightly) called out the hypocrisy of the Trudeau Government pretending to care about freedom abroad, while squashing dissent locally. Surely, most people will remember this clip from November 2013.

In fact, this is a pretty common pattern of politicians in Canada and elsewhere: condemn human rights abuses in other countries, while turning a blind eye to it within their own borders. Talking about Ukraine serves as a great way to divert attention from problems in Canada.

As for the freezing of bank accounts, this was the subject of a hearing. Watching the entire hearing for more context and information.

There was an entertaining piece at 15:38:30, when the $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr was brought up. His human rights mattered, although apparently not those of actual Canadians.

At 16:37:30, there was a reference (from a Liberal MP) to a Globe & Mail article stating that donors were not impacted, and the RCMP denied providing a list of names. However, the RCMP does admit that it provided financial institutions with a list of suspected influencers, vehicles and drivers.

The MP brings up Chrystia Freeland’s declaration giving the police more authority to track finances. Also, the financial reporting requirements of crowdfunding sources is designed to be permanent. There is a lot of hair splitting: while the Government itself may not be collecting data, it’s making it easier (and requiring) banks to do it. It’s also much simpler for the RCMP to obtain financial information.

There was a Parliamentary hearing on the issues of suspending insurance, and freezing bank accounts. However, it seems to be pretty subjective as to what would be considering supporting, or how much discretion banks or insurance companies would have.

It’s also unclear how long this will continue in the future.

For all the talk about the protections of the Canadian Charter, it’s a pretty useless document. Section 1 allows for almost unlimited suspensions of rights, as long as it’s declared to be for a public good. Think about it: the Emergencies Act is held in check by the Charter, but Charter rights can be suspended in the name of an emergency. Sounds like circular logic.

While the hearings try to play this down (freezing bank accounts and insurance), it does raise a precedent where the Government could simply ban large gatherings under the pretense that they were unlawful and a threat to society. Declaring people “designated persons” is would be a way to do it. In short, these “limited” measures could be applied more broadly than originally claimed.

An interesting side note: the Canadian Parliament is also holding hearings on gun control, street gangs, and the spread of illicit firearms. A cynic may wonder if there will be an attempt to link Ottawa protesters to gun smuggling over this.

Ottawa has also been holding hearings since February 10th on the topic of crowdfunding, and financing extremism. Far from just declaring a national emergency, this has been in the works for several days, at least. Transcripts and video are available.

At the time of writing: the legislation to invoke a national emergency has passed the House of Commons (with the NDP supporting the Liberals), and is moving to the Senate.

(1) https://twitter.com/ChinaEmbOttawa/
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8FuHuUhNZ0
(3) https://twitter.com/ChinaEmbOttawa/status/1496249844960215040
(4) https://twitter.com/ChinaEmbOttawa/status/1496249846495432705
(5) https://twitter.com/ChinaEmbOttawa/status/1496249848017960966
(6) https://archive.is/EM0hL
(7) Wayback Machine
(8) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/projected-business
(9) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=11535231
(10) https://twitter.com/HoCChamber/status/1495709541803114497/
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11456966
(12) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11502643
(13) https://www.canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-02-15-x1/pdf/g2-156×1.pdf#page=5
(14) Emergencies Act Protesting Regulations

Emergencies Act Invoked: Bank Accounts To Be Frozen, Double Standard For Protesting

Expect your bank accounts to be at risk if you hold the wrong opinions, or have contributed to the wrong causes. Any pretense of due process has gone out the window.

Many of us wondered when the shoe would drop, and it finally has. Ottawa has invoked the Emergencies Act, and is not even pretending to care about the public’s concerns anymore.

Perhaps the most chilling is from Chrystia Freeland. These “convoys” have provided an excuse for the Federal Government to encroach even further into the personal and financial lives of Canadians. Moreover, banks are now required to comply with some measures, and strongly encouraged on others.

In case you find Freeland too cringey to listen to, here’s a summary of the measures that were announced regarding banking and finance.

  • Anti-money laundering/terrorist financing laws to include crowd-funding platforms
  • Payment processers to be responsible as well
  • Digital assets (and cryptocurrencies) subjected to disclosure laws
  • All crowd funding platforms must register with FinTrac Canada
  • All “large and suspicious” transactions must be reported
  • Reports used as intelligence gathering for law enforcement
  • Legislation will be brought to make these measures permanent
  • Financial institutions can cease services (personal or corporate) based on suspicions
  • Financial institutions “urged to review relationships” with anyone involved in blockades
  • Financial institutions urged to report suspicions to RCMP or CSIS
  • Accounts can be SUSPENDED OR FROZEN without a court order
  • Banks freezing accounts protected from civil liability if done in good faith
  • Federal Government has new authority to share “information” with financial institutions
  • Corporate bank accounts to be frozen if trucks are used in blockades
  • Insurance will be suspended if trucks are used in blockades

Not only is there much more leeway given to freeze or suspend services based on suspicions, but Ottawa intends to “provide information” to financial institutions, and ask them to review relationships. Reading between the lines a bit, it comes across as an attempt to bankrupt, or at least greatly inconvenience.

While there is supposedly Parliamentary oversight, it doesn’t help when everyone is sworn to secrecy. Therefore, the public will likely never know what’s really going on.

Orders and regulations
.
8 (1) While a declaration of a public welfare emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:
.
(a) the regulation or prohibition of travel to, from or within any specified area, where necessary for the protection of the health or safety of individuals;
.
(b) the evacuation of persons and the removal of personal property from any specified area and the making of arrangements for the adequate care and protection of the persons and property;
.
(c) the requisition, use or disposition of property;
.
(d) the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;
.
(e) the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources;
.
(f) the authorization and making of emergency payments;
.
(g) the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals;
.
(h) the assessment of damage to any works or undertakings and the repair, replacement or restoration thereof;
.
(i) the assessment of damage to the environment and the elimination or alleviation of the damage; and
.
(j) the imposition
(i) on summary conviction, of a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both that fine and imprisonment, or
(ii) on indictment, of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both that fine and imprisonment,
.
for contravention of any order or regulation made under this section.

Most interesting: a violation under this order can result in a criminal charge and up to 5 years in jail. Perhaps those isolation centres will come in handy after all.

And by “directing essential services” the Government can effectively override free will and choice by declaring their trades or fields to be essential. Also, say goodbye to property rights, as this Act allows for property to be seized or disposed of.

Liability
Marginal note: Protection from personal liability
.
47 (1) No action or other proceeding for damages lies or shall be instituted against a Minister, servant or agent of the Crown, including any person providing services pursuant to an order or regulation made under subsection 8(1), 19(1), 30(1) or 40(1), for or in respect of any thing done or omitted to be done, or purported to be done or omitted to be done, in good faith under any of Parts I to IV or any proclamation, order or regulation issued or made thereunder.

What a shocker: people are immune from civil liability for the damages they cause under this Act, as long as they claim it’s being done in good faith.

David Lametti, (the Attorney General), tries to convince the public that this is a temporary and limited measure. Keep in mind, medical martial law has already been in effect for 2 years. So it seems disingenuous that this is the real aim. Expect it to be renewed many times.

Things are about to get ugly.
This trucker protest is being used as an excuse to further erode rights and freedoms.

Trudeau, Freeland and Lametti weren’t kidding. They absolutely did order that assets must be frozen, and business relations cut off, for people not following this dictate. Moreover, no business can be sued as long as this was done “in good faith.

As for using public health as a means to control the population, check out the earlier pieces on Health Canada and PHAC. These entities are never what they appear to be, and few bother to check deep enough into it.

If things weren’t bad enough, there are now double standards as to who can legally participate in so-called illegal gathering. Certain classes of people are allowed to protest, while others aren’t

Prohibition — public assembly
2 (1) A person must not participate in a public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace by:
(a) the serious disruption of the movement of persons or goods or the serious interference with trade;
(b) the interference with the functioning of critical infrastructure; or
(c) the support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property.
.
Minor
(2) A person must not cause a person under the age of eighteen years to participate in an assembly referred to in subsection (1).

Prohibition — entry to Canada — foreign national
3 (1) A foreign national must not enter Canada with the intent to participate in or facilitate an assembly referred to in subsection 2(1).
Exemption
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act;
(b) a person who has been recognized as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances to those of a Convention refugee within the meaning of subsection 146(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations who is issued a permanent resident visa under subsection 139(1) of those regulations;
(c) a person who has been issued a temporary resident permit within the meaning of subsection 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and who seeks to enter Canada as a protected temporary resident under subsection 151.1(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations;
(d) a person who seeks to enter Canada for the purpose of making a claim for refugee protection;
(e) a protected person;
(f) a person or any person in a class of persons whose presence in Canada, as determined by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is in the national interest

Now, many people will not be familiar with IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Those rules give foreigners all kinds of rights, even for people in the country illegally. Here are those new exemptions that are referred to in the Canada Gazette:

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — request of foreign national
.
25 (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), the Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37 — who applies for a permanent resident visa, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.

Section 24(1) of IRPA allows for people who have been deemed inadmissible to Canada, for many reasons, to enter the country anyway. Reasons listed include criminal offenses, serious criminal offenses, misrepresentation, and human rights violations.

As for part (f) in the recent order, that references Section 25(1) of IRPA, which allows for threats to national security to enter — and be given permanent residence, if a Minister deems it to be in the public interest. So people banned from Canada (initially), and threats to national security, are allowed to take part in gatherings that would otherwise be considered illegal. Interesting.

Protected people” also seems to encompass family members when dealing with those entering Canada for refugee or other related reasons

The regulations against protesting also don’t apply to Indians, or to people coming to Canada to apply to be a refugee. Perhaps blockading railroad tracks is okay, depending on the skin colour.

Foreign nationals supposedly aren’t supposed to enter for the purpose of illegal public assemblies…. except if you ignore the exceptions.

Freezing bank accounts is allegedly to cut down on violence and terrorist activity. However, terrorists and felons are exempt from the restrictions on gatherings.

So who isn’t protected from being arrested for “unlawful gatherings”? Actual Canadians. Threats to national security, and “inadmissibles” let in anyway are allowed to get away with it. So are people coming to Canada to claim asylum — even if it’s from the United States.

Canadians can have their assets frozen, and have their free speech rights limited. However, there are several categories of people who are subjected to different rules. Some emergency.

Is there Parliamentary oversight? In theory, yes, but it doesn’t help when everyone involved is sworn to secrecy. Even if we did, all parties are basically on the same page.

(1) https://twitter.com/i/events/1492674034143690753
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.5/FullText.html
(3) https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-emergencies-act-tyranny-no-property-rights-indemnification-publication-exemption-parliamentary-secrecy/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/health-canada-initially-created-for-population-control-measures/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill
(7) https://www.canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-02-15-x1/pdf/g2-156×1.pdf#page=5
(8) Emergencies Act Protesting Regulations
(9) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-4.html#h-274473
(10) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/results.php?lang=en
(11) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/results.php?lang=en
(12) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/protected-persons/stage-1-eligibility.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/full-scale-of-inadmissibles-getting-residency-permits-what-global

Anti-White “Weighted Voting” In Ontario Schools, OSSTF Supports Equity & Social Justice

Apparently equal treatment isn’t the way to go for the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. This break came from Jonathan Kay of the National Post. He caught what was going on in at least 1 district in Ontario schools. There’s even a video explaining why treating people differently is good for society at large. However, looking into it a bit, it seems the rot goes much deeper.

The response from District 20 of the OSSTF was to lock its Twitter account so that no one could see the tweets, unless it was approved to follow them. Guess the group really can’t face any public scrutiny over its racist policy. To be clear, when these groups talk about “uplifting marginalized voices”, they really means stripping away the rights of whites.

Under the pretense of “equity” and “lifting up marginalized voices”, segments with the teaching profession seem fine with giving whites a lesser vote when it comes to decision making.

OSSTF/FEESO is a democratic union that recognizes the importance of encouraging and supporting involvement by all members, while recognizing that some members have historically been marginalized. For the Federation to be at its best, all members must see themselves reflected in its goals, structures, and practices. OSSTF/FEESO will strive to identify and eliminate barriers to participation through programs, procedures, bylaws, and policies supported by specified resources and education.

Equal opportunity to participate in the Federation does not mean treating all members the same. Within a democratic framework, promoting the engagement of members of equity-seeking groups is a valid and necessary approach to reaching equal outcomes.

Federation programs and policies designed to eliminate barriers must not only do so, they must be widely seen to do so

The OSSTF Statement on Equity is a doozy. In just a single page, the group has shown that its goal is not education but to uproot society and cause division. The OSSTF doesn’t just want teachers to be teachers, but to be agents in their anti-white agenda.

The last sentence is also quite telling. Not only must our programs has these certain goals, but they must be “seen” as doing so. In other words, optics is very important.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF/FEESO) is a strong, independent, socially active union that promotes and advances the cause of public education and the rights of students, educators and educational workers. While establishing working conditions for its members, OSSTF/FEESO also works to build strong public services, preserve academic freedom, prevent the privatization and commercialization of our educational institutions, ensure that students receive an education that is free of bias and discrimination and provide an equitable opportunity for all students to succeed in a strong, well-funded public education system.

As an organization that prides itself on being a defender of publicly-funded education, OSSTF/FEESO has worked to meet the challenges of addressing equity and social justice. Anti-oppression work is not easy. Like the society we live in, OSSTF/FEESO is not immune to having a troubled history when it comes to the marginalization of equity-seeking groups. We recognize that groups of members within OSSTF/FEESO are still experiencing structural and systemic discrimination such as anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and sexism in the present day.

The OSSTF also has an action plan on equity, and it’s mind numbing. That said, it’s also a glimpse into how schools in the West really operate. Instead of treating all students the same, and allowing the better students to rise, this works on the assumption that some fall behind only because of structural prejudices. As such, apparently it’s the role of schools to fix imaginary societal problems.

The OSSTF explicitly states that “social justice” is to be integrated into how it operates. In other words, political ideology will be woven into the education system.

More information is available on Kay’s thread. It’s disturbing to see that not only is this openly promoted, but it seems to be widely endorsed. Now, an example of how weighted voting might work is provided as well.

In the following case, 7 out of 20 people support a certain initiative. The exact one isn’t important. 7/20 comes out to 0.35 or 35%. Now, the races of some must be weighted differently so that they represent 50% of the vote. This kind of thing nullifies real democracy, and reduces policy votes to ethnic makeup.

Strangely, the same supporters of this would immediately denounce Jim Crow laws, which meant a black’s vote was worth only 3/5 of a white’s vote. In principle, this is exactly the same thing here, just with new groups at the head.

It’s clear that supporters of this have no concern whatsoever about the will of the majority. The 50% weighted vote will ensure non-whites have at least half the voting power, regardless of the actual makeup of the group. Notice that there’s no provision to protect whites who are minorities in certain communities.

If fairness isn’t always (or ever) equitable, then the statement can be reversed: equity isn’t always (or ever) fair. Moreover it stands on its head the kind of society lefties claim they want, as multiculturalism would be inherently flawed.

Parents are outraged by this, as they should be. The OSSTF is playing along with the narrative that everything is based on oppression, and society needs to be inverted. It’s pretty screwy to refer to women as a marginalized group, when they make up the vast majority of teachers in elementary schools, and a large minority (if not a majority) of high school teachers.

It shouldn’t be all that surprising that the feminist movement claims responsibility for a lot of the changes going back decades. Certain groups supported affirmative action 40 years ago, and still do today. Now, should people who think everything is oppression really be educating children?

Far from being limited to Ontario Teachers, the Provincial Government also has a fairly large section devoted to “antiracism” activities. The Anti-Racism Directorate was established in 2016, when Kathleen Wynne was Premier. Since taking power, Doug Ford has apparently seen fit to leave this intact. It gets even worse.

Anti-racism strategy
2 (1) The Government of Ontario shall maintain an anti-racism strategy that aims to eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity.
.
Contents of strategy
(2) The strategy shall include the following:
1. Initiatives to eliminate systemic racism, including initiatives to identify and remove systemic barriers that contribute to inequitable racial outcomes.
2. Initiatives to advance racial equity.
3. Targets and indicators to measure the strategy’s effectiveness.
.
Same
(3) The initiatives referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection (2) shall include initiatives to assist racialized groups that are most adversely impacted by systemic racism, including Indigenous and Black communities.
.
Same
(4) The initiatives referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection (2) shall include initiatives to address the adverse impact of different forms of racism, including anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia.

In 2017, the Ontario Government brought in the Anti-Racism Act. Doug Ford left it intact. The Act goes on and on about equity, or equality of outcome. This is quite different from equality of opportunity.

Not only has Ford not scrapped any of this, but taxpayer money is getting handed out in the form of antiracism grants. Some $1.6 million has been set aside for this effort.

This builds on Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter, which fully endorses racism and discrimination, as long as the people doing it claim to be acting on behalf of marginalized groups. Strangely, there is one group that is never oppressed, despite being harmed by all these equity initiatives.

As the white population continues to disappear in Ontario, and elsewhere in the West, expect this sort of thing to only get worse. It’s bad enough to be a despised majority in society. When one becomes a despised minority, that’s when things get ugly.

(1) https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1461847160253779974
(2) https://twitter.com/OSSTFD20TEACHER
(3) https://www.osstf.on.ca/about-us/what-we-stand-for/equity.aspx
(4) OSSTF Equity Statement 2020
(5) OSSTF Plan On Action On Equity
(6) https://www.osstf.on.ca/about-us/what-we-stand-for/social-justice.aspx
(7) https://riseupfeministarchive.ca/activism/organizations/ontario-secondary-school-teachers-federation-osstf/
(8) Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) – Rise Up! Feminist Digital Archive
(9) https://riseupfeministarchive.ca/activism/organizations/ontario-secondary-school-teachers-federation-osstf/osstf-forum-oct-nov1983-affirmativeaction/
(10) Making Up the Difference_ Mandatory Affirmative Action (Forum) – October_November 1983
(11) https://www.ontario.ca/page/anti-racism-directorate
(12) Anti-Racism Directorate _ ontario.ca
(13) https://www.ontario.ca/page/anti-racism-anti-hate-grant-program
(14) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/17a15

Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Open Source Intelligence Gathering, And Global Counter-Intelligence In Action

This piece on the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a continuation of the last one. Now, let’s look a little more into who’s doing this, and what they actually want.

This may seem a bit ironic (or stupid), doing open source intelligence gathering on an intelligence gathering outlet. Nonetheless, the public does need to be aware of what is going on.

According to its latest tax return, the ISD took in about 5.6 million British Pounds, almost exclusively from “charitable” sources. That also describes the bulk of their spending. Perhaps the Government funding is simply classified as charities, or is being funneled through them

If you think these people aren’t monitoring what you post, and using it as evidence in their reports, consider some of their profiles. All of this information came directly from them.

In its Twitter biography, the ISD describes itself as “fiercely independent”. This is downright disingenuous, considering the partners it works with, and the sources of its funding. This is no more independent than the heavily subsidized media outlets that are everywhere in Canada. See the bottom links for more details.

Kata Balint is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, primarily working on the analysis of the climate change debate in Hungary, using digital analysis tools and open source intelligence methods. Kata’s main areas of research are political radicalisation and extremism, with a focus on far-right groups and movements; disinformation and conspiracy theories; and political attitudes and behaviour. Kata previously worked as an Analyst in the Radicalisation and Extremism Programme of Political Capital, an independent research institute based in Hungary, where she co-authored a number of research papers and was involved in radicalisation prevention activities. She gained her first professional experiences working in the Office of the Hungarian Parliament and in the European Parliament. Kata completed her postgraduate studies in Political Psychology at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK, and she holds an undergraduate degree in Social Sciences with majors in International Studies and Communication from Roskilde University, Denmark.

Chloe Colliver is Head of Digital Policy and Strategy at ISD, where she leads a global team of analysts studying disinformation and extremism online, including programmes of work focusing on the German, European Parliamentary, UK, Swedish and US Elections. She has worked on the development of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and has provided expert testimony to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee, the Swedish, New Zealand, Canadian, French and German governments on digital policy and tech regulation. She has been featured at CNN, the BBC, Sky News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Wired and Bloomberg. She is the co-author of ISD reports Spin Cycle: Information Laundering on Facebook, Developing a Civil Society Response to Online Manipulation, The 101 of Disinformation Detection, Click Here For Outrage: Disinformation in the European Parliamentary Elections 2019, The First 100 Days: Coronavirus and Crisis Management on Social Media Platforms, and Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Chloe is a Yale Mellon Fellow and sits on the Advisory Board for Accountable Tech.

Milo Comerford is Head of Policy & Research, Counter Extremism, leading ISD’s work developing innovative research approaches and policy responses to extremism. Milo regularly briefs senior decision makers around the world on the challenge posed by extremist ideologies, and advises governments and international agencies on building effective strategies for countering extremism. He was previously Senior Analyst at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where he led major research projects on Salafi-jihadi propaganda, international educational responses to extremism, and the transnational far right. His writing and research features frequently in international media and he has made recent broadcast appearances on BBC News, Sky News and Al Jazeera.

Jiore Craig is the Head of Political Integrity and Digital Communication at ISD. She has extensive international experience, previously spending eight years helping elected officials, political leaders, media organisations, academic institutions and civic society organisations across five continents to measure the impact of digital communication and influence campaigns on public opinion and communicate effectively in the wake of the threat of disinformation around elections. She was previously a Vice President at a global political consulting firm, where she built a digital practice serving Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the US. Jiore’s work informed the design of major coalition efforts to counter disinformation in the 2020 US and 2019 European Parliament elections. Her work is cited in The Washington Post, New York Magazine, The L.A. Times, The New Yorker, and she has been a featured guest on the election podcast, Pod Save America.

Jacob Davey is Head of Research & Policy of Far-right and Hate Movements. His research focuses on the role of digital communications in inter-communal conflict, internet culture, online hate speech and the international far-right. He has led a number of projects piloting novel models for identifying extremist conversation online as well as interventions to counter this phenomenon. He has advised national and local policymakers on right-wing extremism, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, and has lead trainings with frontline practitioners on the mobilisation strategies of extremist groups. He has provided commentary on extremism-related issues in a number of platforms including The Guardian, The Independent, and The BBC, and also sits as a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. He is the co-author of ISD reports Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, The Interplay Between Australia’s Political Fringes on the Right and Left: Online Messaging on Facebook, The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram, An Online Environmental Scan of Right-wing Extremism in Canada, The Fringe Insurgency – Connectivity, Convergence and Mainstreaming of the Extreme Right, Counter-Conversations: A model for direct engagement with individuals showing signs of radicalisation online, “Mainstreaming Mussolini” – How the Extreme Right Attempted to ‘Make Italy Great Again’ in the 2018 Italian Election, ‘The Great Replacement’: The Violent Consequences of Mainstreamed Extremism, and An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists.

Jasmine El-Gamal is a Senior Manager for Africa, Middle East and Asia (AMEA) at ISD, where she is responsible for overseeing prevention of violent extremism (PVE) research and programming. From 2015-2020, Jasmine was a Senior Fellow with the Middle East program at the Atlantic Council, where she focused primarily on U.S. policies in the Middle East. From 2013-2015, Jasmine served as a Special Assistant to three consecutive Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, where she advised on national security issues. From 2008-2013, Jasmine served as a Middle East advisor at the Pentagon, where she served three Secretaries of Defense. During her tenure, she prepared and staffed the Secretary of Defense on foreign trips and during Congressional briefings. She covered issues related to Iraq, Syria, the Arab Spring and ISIS, among others, and served as the Acting Chief of Staff for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. From 2014-2016, Jasmine served as a translator and cultural advisor to the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where she provided briefings on Islam and Arab culture to incoming military officers in advance of their participation on the Review Boards. She conducted over 100 detainee interviews during her time at GTMO regarding their background and journey to Afghanistan and ensured the integrity of their testimony during their review boards, many of which resulted in the illumination of their unjust detention. In 2003, Jasmine served as a translator with a U.S. Civil Affairs team responsible for reconstruction in Southern Iraq, helping to facilitate communication and cooperation between U.S. forces and the local population in rebuilding the area. Her commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, Newsweek, Time Magazine, CNN, Al Jazeera, Al Hurra, L’Orient du Jour, Sawt al Azhar, Al Masry Al Youm and other international outlets.

Aoife Gallagher is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, focusing on the intersection between far-right extremism, disinformation and conspiracy theories and using a mixture of data analysis, open source intelligence and investigative techniques to understand the online ecosystem where these ideas flourish and spread. Previously, Aoife was a journalist with the online news agency, Storyful. She is co-author of the ISD reports The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory and Profit and Protest: How Facebook is struggling to enforce limits on ads spreading hate, lies and scams about the Black Lives Matter protests. Aoife has completed an MA in Journalism.

Cooper Gatewood is a Senior Digital Research Manager within ISD’s Digital Research Unit, focusing on quantitative research into the spread of hateful and polarising narratives online, and how they are leveraged by extremist actors. Cooper is currently contributing to ISD’s research on disinformation campaigns, particularly those aimed to influence and disrupt election processes. He also manages on the Online Civil Courage Initiative in France, coordinating activities to support civil society’s response to hate and extremism online. In addition, Cooper conducts ongoing evaluation of a number of ISD’s programmes, including Be Internet Citizens and Young Digital Leaders. Cooper also develops monitoring and evaluation frameworks for a number of ISD’s education projects. Previously, Cooper worked at Portland, where he advised clients from the non-profit and government sectors on their media engagement and social media strategies. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook, La pandémie de COVID-19: terreau fertile de la haine en ligne, Fostering Civic Responses to Online Harms, Promouvoir le civisme en ligne face aux malveillances à l’ère du numérique, Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud, Mapping hate in France: A panoramic view of online discourse, and Building Digital Citizenship in France: Lessons from the Sens Critique project. Cooper holds a Masters of International Affairs from Columbia University and a Masters of International Security from Sciences Po and is fluent in Spanish and French, as well as speaking proficient Japanese.

Jakob Guhl is a Manager at ISD, where he works within the Digital Research Unit and with ISD Germany. His research focuses on the far-right, Islamist extremism, hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. He is a frequent commentator on German radio and broadcast, including Deutschlandfunk, Tagesthemen, NDR and Radio Eins. Jakob has been invited to present his research about online hate to the German Ministry of the Justice and provided evidence to the German Minister of the Interior and the German Family Minister on how to strengthen prevention against right-wing extremism and antisemitism. His research has been featured in Die Zeit, The Guardian, DW, The Telegraph, CNN, Euronews, Coda Story, Vice, Politico, New Republic and Die Welt, among others. Additionally, he has published articles in the “Journal for Deradicalisation”, “Demokratie gegen Menschenfeindlichkeit”, Taz, Der Standard, GNET and co-authored an essay for an edited volume of the Munich Residence Theatre about the origins of contemporary political anger. He is the co-author of ISD reports Crisis and Loss of Control: German-Language Digital Extremism in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram and The Online Ecosystem of the German Far-Right. Jakob holds an MA in Terrorism, Security and Society from King’s College London.

Sasha Havlicek is Co-Founder and CEO of ISD, having spearheaded ISD’s pioneering research and data analysis, digital education, policy advisory, training, tech and communications programmes. With a background in conflict resolution and an expertise in extremism, digital information operations and electoral interference, she has advised a range of governments at the highest levels and has spearheaded partnerships with the UN, EU Commission and Global Counter-Terrorism Forum. She has also worked with the private and civil society sectors to promote innovation, including developing major programmes run in partnership with Google, FB and Microsoft. Sasha serves as an expert advisor to the UK Counter-Extremism Commission and the Mayor of London’s counter-extremism programme, and is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Sasha previously served as Senior Director at the EastWest Institute where she led conflict resolution programming. Sasha has testified before US Congress, the UK Parliament and is a regular commentator in the media (CNN, BBC, Channel 4 News and other networks).

Jennie King is a Senior Policy Manager at ISD. She supports programme design, policy outreach and strategy across the organisation. Jennie previously served as MENA Regional Director Arts, Assistant Country Director Egypt and Co-Director Hungary for the British Council, the UK’s international body for cultural relations. She also served as an Attaché for the Guatemalan Diplomatic Mission. She is the co-author of the ISD report Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Jennie read Arabic and Spanish at Pembroke College, Cambridge, receiving a Foundation Scholarship and the Marie Shamma’a Frost Prize for Oriental Studies.

Daniel Maki is a Senior Manager in charge of open-source intelligence (OSINT) research for ISD’s Digital Research Unit, as well as serving as ISD’s Digital Risk Officer. Daniel leads a team of practitioners in the collection and analysis of intelligence related to investigations, ethnographic research, crisis response, and security monitoring. He also regularly serves as a subject-matter expert in intelligence collection and analysis within ISD and on behalf of ISD’s key partners. As ISD’s Digital Risk Officer, Daniel is responsible for tackling emerging digital risks and identifying operational security threats encountered in the course of research projects and investigations. Daniel has worked in the intelligence community for ten years as an investigator and intelligence analyst, conducting investigations into a wide variety of matters, including financial crime, insider threats, counterintelligence, espionage, organized crime and corruption, workplace misconduct, cybercrime, terrorism, and geopolitical conflict.

Ciaran O’Connor is an Analyst at ISD, working in the Research and Policy unit. Ciaran specialises in using open-source research to track and monitor disinformation and extremism online, with a particular focus on far-right activity and communication across open and closed networks and platforms. Ciaran is currently working on multiple ISD projects in analysing the intersection of misinformation and extremism with COVID-19 on social media. Ciaran previously worked as a journalist on the investigations team at Storyful, a social media news agency that specialises in the verification and analysis of amateur footage and misinformation online. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook and Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud.

Christian Schwieter is a Project Manager at ISD Germany, leading the German-language research project on far-right activity on alternative and emerging online platforms. At ISD, Christian also co-led the pilot phase of the Digital Policy Lab, a new intergovernmental working group focused on charting the online policy path forward to prevent and counter disinformation, hate speech and extremism. Previously, Christian worked as a researcher for the Computational Propaganda Project at the Oxford Internet Institute, where he co-authored reports on state-backed information operations relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2019, Christian was the Specialist Adviser on Disinformation Matters for the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee at the House of Commons. Christian holds an MSc in Social Science of the Internet from the University of Oxford and a BA from Leiden University College The Hague.

Henry Tuck is Head of Policy & Programmes at ISD for work across Europe and the Five Eyes countries. He is responsible for the overall management of the Institute’s research programme, including oversight of all publications, research methods, and ethics across a variety of topics, from disinformation to the far-right and extremism online. Henry also leads ISD’s policy-focused work to counter online harms in collaboration with a range of key stakeholders, advising leading governments, international organisations and major private sector tech companies. He is the co-author of ISD reports An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists, The Counter-Narrative Monitoring & Evaluation Handbook, Shooting in the right direction: Anti-ISIS Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq, and The Counter-narrative Handbook. Henry holds a Masters in International Conflict Studies from Kings College London, and a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Durham University.

Several profiles actually refer to “open source intelligence gathering”. Do you realize what this means? Online posts and comments are being tracked, documented, archived, and used for later research. It’s no surprise that so many have ties to Governments around the world, and that they appear as “experts” in the mainstream media quite often. This is (one of) the groups being paid to push certain narratives.

The ISD promotes the work of Marianna Spring, who does “anti-misinformation” efforts on behalf of the Gates-funded British Broadcasting Corporation.

The ISD has teamed up with social media influencers to “manage the narrative” around the latest climate change conference in the U.K. Obviously, the lay people are too dumb to think for themselves, and must be told what to believe.

ISD has also written about how Facebook can be more effective at enforcing the bans of people already removed from the network. Considering that Facebook is a major donor and partner, this isn’t nefarious, or any sort of conflict of interest. They’re also going after Tik Tok.

Apparently, the rapid demographic changes in Western countries since the 1960s just happened. There wasn’t any concerted “replacement agenda“, according to the report from ISD. It’s just some racist conspiracy theory that gets thrown around.

By the way, if you need money and lack much of a soul, the ISD is currency hiring for a few different positions. Apply today!

On a more serious note: these people are doing “open source intelligence gathering”, which means that content being posted is being used for other purposes. There is an agenda here, so truth and source material may not matter, nor would context. In a similar vein, edgy and trolling posts may be taken at face value and used to push certain narratives, like here. It’s not your friends or family you need to worry about, but think tank operatives.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.isdglobal.org/
(2) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/public-health-disinformation/
(3) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/climate-disinformation/
(4) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/conspiracy-networks/
(5) https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/tags-flags-and-banners-evaluating-the-application-of-information-resources-on-vaccine-content-on-tiktok/
(6) https://twitter.com/ISDglobal
(7) https://twitter.com/ISDglobal/status/1460545038723788805
(8) https://twitter.com/shannonpareil/status/1459199605329915905
(9) https://isdglobal.recruitee.com/
(10) INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE – 1141069
(11) https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/the-great-replacement-the-violent-consequences-of-mainstreamed-extremism/
(12) The Great Replacement The Violent Consequences of Mainstreamed Extremism by ISD
(13) https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-chloe-colliver-on-trolling-of-un-migration-pact-for-danish-broadcasting-corporation/

RESOURCES FOR MEDIA ACTING AS COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/public-media-alliance-brussels-declaration-protecting-journalists-media-freedom/
(L) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Partners, Funding

EVEN MORE MEDIA SUBSIDIES
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-1-unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/

%d bloggers like this: