Category: Gun Rights, Disarmament

Posted on

Gamil Gharbi’s Crimes Okay To Gaslight Gun Owners, Men — But Don’t Use His Name

Apparently, using the birth name of a mass murder is wrong. But using his crimes to push agendas against men, and legal gun owners gets downplayed.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. Quotes From The Article

This also now occurs when the Montréal Massacre is discussed. Mainstream media frequently avoid naming Marc Lépine, the legal gun owner who used his Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle to kill 14 women in 1989.

Some opponents of gun control, however, still name the shooter. But they often employ Lépine’s birth name: Gamil Gharbi. In doing so, these members of the firearms community seek to “other” the gunman — to distinguish him from other gun owners, and to intimate that he was not a “real” Canadian firearms owner.

Invoking his birth name raises the spectre of stereotypes associated with “foreigners,” especially Muslims — themselves the victims of a mass shooting in Québec four years ago this month.

For anyone who has followed this at all, the massacre by Lépine/Gharbi “has” been used for political agendas. Specifically, it has been used to push gun control measures, mandatory minimum jail sentences for gun crimes, and to narrative of women being the victims of male violence.

The author makes no mention whatsoever of the gun control legislation being advanced as a result of Gharbi’s crimes. There is also just passing mention of the anti-male narrative that has resulted.

Instead, the outrage seems limited to one point: that Marc Lépine’s birth name, Ghamil Gharbi is frequently used. That name is (supposedly) used to point out his Muslim heritage.

Lépine was born in Montréal. His mother was a French-Canadian nurse; his father was an Algerian businessman. Lépine’s parents split up when he was a child, and his mother returned to work to support the family. At 14, his name was legally changed and he took on his mother’s pre-marital surname.

Groups representing firearm owners frequently seek to define gun violence as mostly a problem of criminal gangs. They argue that the licensed firearms community is responsible for few of the illicit drug-related shootings that grab headlines in Canadian newspapers.

That’s true, though those same groups are reluctant to discuss other kinds of gun violence, including domestic homicide and suicides, which often involve legal firearm owners.

The fact that the Montréal Massacre shooter had acquired a licence to purchase his rifle (then called a Firearms Acquisition Certificate) is problematic for the gun community.

The author admits that one of the main defenses is true: that legal gun owners are not responsible for bulk of the gang and drug related deaths which are rampant in cities like Toronto.

No mention of the bulk of the guns used being illegally obtained, and many smuggled in from the United States.

Law-abiding gun owners are rightfully upset when the horrific crimes of a few people are used as justification to crack down on their rights.

How is it a problem? Yes, he did have a license at a time. And to get it, a person would have to undergo a police background check. And a license can be suspended or revoked for many reasons. By contrast, people who want to commit serious crimes with a gun won’t be deterred by an illegal firearm possession.

The solution therefore for some Canadian firearms owners is to distinguish Lépine from other gun users by referring to him as Gamil Gharbi.

Politicians and gun control advocates try to lump them in with people like Gharbi, and get new laws passed. So, distinguishing themselves is important. They differentiate from Gharbi by pointing out that the vast majority of them are not committing crimes.

As a side note: why would using his name be bad? After all, aren’t all cultures and religions equally valid when it comes to respecting the rights of women?

As historian Karen Dubinsky correctly noted in 2009:
.
“Right-wing Canadian males seem eager to name Lépine as Gharbi, because to them this means he was a product of North African, not North American, culture … this proves the foreignness of Lépine/Gharbi’s misogyny and tells us everything we need to know about Algerians, Muslims and the rightness of the War on Terror.”

Gun control advocates love to tie Gharbi to the community that owns and uses guns — LEGALLY — but feign outrage when the community pushes back. No decent person wants anything to do with him, or his violent ways.

It’s interesting to bring up the War on Terror. In reality, this is a series of wars America will fight in order to obtain regional hegemony for another country. PNAC, (the Project for a New American Century), is something Neocons support, but actual right wing Canadians and Americans don’t.

Some gun owners have been particularly keen to refer to Lépine as Gharbi.
.
For example, an organization called Justice for Gun Owners wrote in 2017 that “radical feminists like to portray Gamil Gharbi as a typical Canadian male, but this is very far from the truth.” He was, rather, “the son of an Algerian wife beater.”

In 2018, the National Firearms Association published a letter in its official journal that connected several mass shootings to immigrants or people of colour.

The writer admitted that he might be “stepping onto a slippery slope,” but said he could not understand why the media still used the name Lépine when “in point of fact, his actual name is Gamil Gharbi and he was born the son of a reportedly abusive Muslim immigrant from Algeria.” He asked how the home life of Lépine differed “from the average law-abiding Canadian gun owner?”

Since the Canadian Government is hesitant to release statistics on race and crime, let’s use F.B.I. Crime Statistics. In 2019, there was one group, which makes up about 13% of the population, but consisted 51.2% of all murders, 52.7% of all robberies, and 41.8% of weapons related arrests. These numbers are pretty consistent year after year.

Does it mean all people from a certain group are bad? Of course not, but just disparities cannot be ignored.

Gharbi is used as an example to shame and humiliate men, or legal gun owners, and it’s no problem. But mention his Algerian ancestry, and suddenly it’s a big deal.

Blaming immigrants or people of colour for gun violence is not new in Canada. Historically, Canadians have often ascribed a tendency towards violence to people of some races or ethnic origin.

Today, however, invoking the birth name of the Montréal Massacre shooter is an attempt by some gun owners to avoid taking any responsibility for violence in Canada, and to instead distract by pointing fingers at immigrants and people of colour.

It’s part of an effort to say that law-abiding gun owners (or LAGOs, as some call themselves) are never the problem.

There’s just one problem with this argument. Lépine was a licensed gun owner. That troubling historical fact should not be forgotten.

Nice strawman. It’s disingenuous to claim that licensed gun owners say they are never the problem. Some have committed serious crimes. However, people who who do follow the law do not want to be involved with those who do.

No one is blaming all immigrants or all people of colour for all violence. Individual people should be held responsible for the actions they are engage in.

That being said, certain groups do commit very disproportionate levels of violent crime. Taking a look at Toronto’s most wanted, does that look like it’s old-stock Canadians committing them?

It’s entirely possible that the author has little knowledge about the politics that Gharbi helped advance (intentionally or not). However, the tone and content comes across as condescending, and as gaslighting.

3. Selective Outrage Over Gharbi Shooting

The content of this article reflects almost perfectly how partial and selective people can be over this. Either he is completely unaware, or just makes an argument in bad faith. There’s no discussion that this mass murder helped advance the gun control agenda. Not a word about the harsher prison sentences that were made law because of this. It’s briefly mentioned — but not condemned — that feminist groups use this event to criticize men in general.

But don’t use his birth name: Gamil Gharbi.
Don’t mention his Algerian heritage.
Don’t refer to him as a Muslim.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

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

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

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

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access order
.
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

4. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

Bit Of History: No Consequences For 2013 Illegal RCMP Gun Grab In High River

True, this is several years old, but what happened then could easily happen again to honest citizens. The Canada Firearms Media Wire posted this video from 2015, where the RCMP attempt to justify a gun seizure in High River, Alberta. It doesn’t go so well.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. RCMP Attempts To Justify Gun Grab

Mr. Ian McPhail, the Chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (Commission), today released the Commission’s report on its Chair-initiated complaint and public interest investigation into the RCMP’s response to the 2013 flood in High River, Alberta.

The Commission’s investigation reviewed the decisions and actions of RCMP members with respect to the entry of private residences, and the seizure of firearms from some residences during the emergency response to the flooding of High River.

The investigation included an examination of approximately 10,000 pages of documentation, more than 1,000 images and 50 videos, as well as a review of RCMP operational and administrative policies, applicable laws and jurisprudence related to the actions in question. Investigators also interviewed dozens of individuals affected by the flood and the resulting emergency response.

“The 2013 flooding of the Town of High River, Alberta, was unprecedented and challenged the emergency response capacity of the region to its limits. There is no question that the emergency measures implemented were extraordinary and saw countless examples of heroic efforts by first responders, including members of the RCMP, which deserve to be fully recognized,” said Mr. McPhail.

“However, it is also clear that, in the interest of saving lives and securing property, RCMP members exceeded their authorities in some instances during the emergency response. The Commission’s investigation found no evidence that this was deliberate, but rather that it occurred as a result of a lack of understanding of legal authorities applicable under the circumstances, unclear policy relating to emergency response management, and gaps in RCMP leadership. This, combined with ineffective communications by the RCMP about how it was responding to the crisis, added to public anxiety and led many to question the integrity of the RCMP’s actions,” added Mr. McPhail.

Following the seizure of many firearms from the homes of law abiding residents, a formal complaint was filed against the RCMP.

In the Interim Report of February 2015, it was admitted that firearms were seized that were not unsecure, and not in plain view. However, the the RCMP attempts to justify this as a communications breakdown, and officers acting in good faith. There is plenty of self-congratulations about the officers involved, and the lives saved.

The Final Report in April 2016 recommended the RCMP revisit their communications and emergency management policies, but did not recommend any action be taken against the officers involved.

3. Should There Have Been Real Consequences?

The RCMP have tried to justify this by claiming that they went door-to-door looking for survivors and pets to rescue. They say that guns were seized, but that they were in plain view, or unsecured weapons.

However, even the findings say that weapons that were hidden and secure were seized. This means that the narrative about “plain view” is false. Also, it doesn’t really fit the narrative of a search-and-rescue to save lives, if police end up searching small and hidden spots for guns.

Why were these other guns taken? A charitable theory would be that police found a few weapons in the open, and got startled. A more conspiratorial approach would be that this flood just provided a convenient excuse to try out such a seizure. But only the RCMP and the politicians know for sure.

Posted on

WEF Great Reset: Banking Cartel; Climate Change; End Of Private Property; Privacy; Guns

At 5:10 in this video, Trudeau says that Canada will be giving 50% of the doses of vaccine it pays for to the 3rd World. Motion M-132 really was about financing drugs for the entire world.

1. Canadian Politicians Connected To WEF

Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Economics, University of Calgary. 2002, Leader of the Opposition; co-founded Conservative Party and won party leadership; 2006, Prime Minister of Canada. Recipient of awards: Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service; first Canadian to be awarded B’nai Brith Presidential Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism (2008).

Andrew Sheer is a Canadian politician serving as the Member of Parliament for Regina-Qu’Appelle since 2004 and as the leader of the conservative party and leader of the official opposition since 2017. He was one of the youngest MPs when he was first elected and his vision and leadership have earned him the continued confidence to be re-elected.

Build Back Stronger
The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.

Journalist and author. Began career as a Ukraine-based stringer; went on to hold senior positions at the Globe and Mail, the Financial Times and Thomson Reuters. First elected as a Member of Parliament in November 2013, was appointed International Trade Minister in November 2015, Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2017 and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in November 2019. Has written two books: “Sale of the Century” (2000) and “Plutocrats” (2012).‎ In 2018, recognised as Foreign Policy’s Diplomat of the Year and awarded the Eric M. Warburg Award by Atlantik-Brücke. Speaks Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French and English. Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Bachelor’s in Administrative Studies, York University, MBA, University of Windsor. Certified Management Accountant. Formerly: several years with the Ford Motor Company of Canada; Privy Councillor and Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Paul Martin; Critic for Public Works and Government Services, the Treasury Board, International Trade, Natural Resources, and Small Business and Tourism. Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Malton; November 2015, appointed Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Former: Adjunct Lecturer, Master of Public Service programme, University of Waterloo; Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University. Former director of social and cultural organizations within the non-profit sector. Recipient of numerous awards recognizing work in promoting diversity in communities.

1988, Bachelor’s in Economics, Harvard University; 1993, Master’s in Economics and 1995, Doctorate in Economics, Oxford University. Thirteen years with Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, Toronto. 2003-04, Deputy Governor, Bank of Canada. 2004-08, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Finance. 2008-13, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Since July 2013, Governor of the Bank of England. Chairman, Financial Stability Board (FSB); Member: Board, Bank for International Settlements and Chairman; Group of Thirty; Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum.

Carney isn’t officially a politician, but he may as well be, considering the many roles he plays.

https://www.weforum.org/people/stephen-harper
https://www.weforum.org/people/andrew-scheer
https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
https://www.weforum.org/people/michelle-rempel
https://www.weforum.org/people/chrystia-freeland
https://weforum.org/people/navdeep-bains
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/mark-carney
https://www.weforum.org/people/jagmeet-singh

2. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

3. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

4. 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 “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 is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

5. Great Reset To Abolish Private Property

A large part of the Great Reset is abolishing real private property rights, at least for the average person. The Reset has been openly discussed for a long time, and they aren’t even bothering to hide their agenda anymore.

Beyond physical property, this refers to money as well. Overhauling the monetary system, and removing physical cash means much less (or none), control for people over their own wealth.

The World Economic Forum (and its participants), want people to view property not as theirs, but as the community’s. This is Marxism.

6. “Stakeholder Capitalism” Being Pushed

The concept of stakeholder capitalism has been gaining traction against the prevailing shareholder-primacy model of profit maximization. As the World Economic Forum’s founder, Klaus Schwab, asked in a recent editorial: “What kind of capitalism do we want”?

Profits are not the sole purpose of a business. Let us remind ourselves that corporations exist to solve problems and provide services. If they are successful at doing this, shareholder long-term returns can increase, as society in general is better served.

The debate regarding the role of stakeholders within a firm is, primarily, a governance debate. As in most challenges that require robust leadership to change the way we live, work and interact, transformation starts from the top. Corporate governance sits at the heart of this – and for this reason, the World Economic Forum has recently published a framework structured around seven pillars:

These people are communists, but want to make it less obvious. Consequently, they refer to property owners as “shareholders”, and the public at large as “stakeholders”. The focus is on converting from a shareholder economy to a stakeholder one.

7. Great Reset & Digital Cooperation

A lot of what is talked about is access to the internet for more and more of the population. While this sounds fine, there are areas that are quite alarming. These include the ever ambiguous “trust and safety” provisions, laid out in the Digital Cooperation Roadmap.

Terrorist groups and violent extremists have exploited the Internet and social media to cause harm in both the digital and physical worlds. Cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns targeting election infrastructure, political parties and politicians are undermining political participation, as well as the legitimacy of essential institutions, while sowing discontent and mistrust. States and non-State actors are rapidly increasing their cyber capabilities and developing increasingly sophisticated cyber arsenals. Nevertheless, close to half of all countries in the world do not have a Computer Emergency Response Team, which would give them the organizational and technological capacity to respond to cyberthreats.

Over the past few years, important efforts have been under way to address the rising threats to the online world. Encouraging voluntary efforts have been seen, including the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and the Contract for the Web, many of which are multi-stakeholder, as well as initiatives on specific issues, such as the Christchurch Call to Action to address terrorist and violent extremist narratives. The initiatives have helped to bring about important progress for multi-stakeholder engagement. However, these efforts are not yet universal, and their reach, though broad in some cases, does not yet cover large swathes of the world.

Of course, everyone supports free speech. However, there needs to be some global regulations, such as digital cooperation, to manage it all.

Along with the dilution of free speech, one can expect privacy to be eroded as well. After all, you can’t hunt down people to cut off their freedom if you don’t know who they are.

8. WEF Great Reset & Digital Identity

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 2018 in Davos, a diverse group of public and private stakeholders committed to shared cooperation on advancing good, user-centric digital identities. The Platform for Good Digital Identity seeks to advance global activities towards digital identities that are collaborative and put the user interest at the center: e.g. they are fit for purpose, inclusive, useful, secure, and offers choice to individuals. It will do so by advancing the Identity Coalitions Network: the learning and action network of organizations that implement Good ID solutions that are human centric and collaborative, by:
.
– Mapping digital identity coalitions advancing digital identity
.
– Encouraging shared learnings and new coalitions through a global action network
.
– Focusing on practitioners implementing user-centric use cases collaboratively: e.g. e-KYC, payments, health credentials, safe work, safe mobility, etc.
.
– Creating a digital identity implementation guidance for current and future coalitions

Well, the digital ID system will make it easier to eliminate cash, since everyone will be hooked into the financial system electronically. No word on people being microchipped, but that will probably come up later.

The other benefit (from their perspective), is that it becomes much easier to erase and financially cripple dissidents if they are completely dependent on the electronic systems.

9. Central Bankers Support Great Reset

Taking place from 16-20 Nov, the Pioneers of Change Summit is happening as the news is full of optimistic reports about vaccines for COVID-19. If there is light at the end of the tunnel, what needs to happen next to get economies back on their feet and make the transformations needed to cope with future pandemics and climate change – and to make the benefits of scientific advances available to all?

Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, (European Central Bank), appeared on the Pioneers of Change podcast.

10. Central Banks Pushing Digital Currency

The decline of cash use in western economies has accelerated due to COVID-19. Meanwhile, central bank digital currencies are emerging, potentially upending the existing global economic hierarchy.

Lockdowns limit physical interactions and naturally reduce physical cash use. But there also credible concerns that paper money can transmit the virus. Research has shown that the average European banknote plays host to around 26,000 colonies of bacteria. The human influenza virus can survive on a banknote for up to 17 days; with one-dollar and five-dollar bills changing hands more than 100 times per year on average, the risk during a global pandemic is considerable.

Who then can blame the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) when it announced in February that it would be destroying cash collected in high-risk environments, such as public transport, markets or in hospitals?

China is not alone. Deutsche Bank Research has tracked almost 20 digital currency projects led by central banks across all regions globally. Meanwhile, the private banking sector has also launched multiple initiatives, such as the R3 consortium, or in India, the Blockchain Infrastructure Company.

Using the “pandemic” to convert to cashless system had been decried for a long time as a conspiracy theory. Now, it is quite openly admitted, but advocates just put a different spin on it.

11. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/fossil-fuel-monetary-policy-economics-reassessment/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/financial-policymakers-climate-change/

In a 2015 speech, Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, sparked a debate about whether monetary policymakers should look beyond the horizon of the business and credit cycles to ensure financial stability in light of the risks posed by climate change. More recently, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has said that she wants the ECB to tackle climate change, in addition to its traditional price-stability remit.

The climate threats to financial stability that central bankers worry about could arise not only from increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, but also from the shift away from fossil fuels as a source of energy. That transition ultimately would turn reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal into stranded assets, jeopardizing the financial health of corporations, insurers, and other financial institutions that are exposed to fossil fuels.

The overall exposure of advanced economies such as the United Kingdom or those of the European Union to fossil fuels may appear to be relatively small. Nonetheless, we should not underestimate the systemic risk posed by stranded assets – after all, the 2008 global financial crisis was triggered by developments in the relatively small subprime mortgage market in the United States. And, for fossil-fuel exporters, stranded-asset risks are undeniably larger. The collapse in oil prices that started in June 2014 provided a recent stark reminder of the risks posed by excessive dependence on fossil fuels.

In addition, central banks’ response to the risk of stranded assets may influence how fossil-fuel exporters invest their wealth. Many oil exporters have accumulated vast financial assets. These countries’ strategic allocation of such assets is all the more important given the mounting risks to their main source of wealth. By looking beyond the business-cycle horizon, central banks can play a critical role in facilitating these countries’ investments in non-fossil-fuel assets.

In the face of the challenge posed by climate change, the focus of monetary policy often seems very short term. Central bankers must break this “curse of horizons” and take decisive steps to address fossil-fuel-related risks. They need to reflect on and communicate the existential threat of stranded reserves and capital, advocate the adoption of appropriate structural policies, pursue a suitable interest-rate policy, and provide supportive financial policies to encourage both economic diversification and changes in strategic asset allocation. Combating climate change while maintaining global financial stability requires nothing less.

A question has to be asked here: have the bankers simply infiltrated and hijacked the environment movement? Or have they always played a role, even if behind the scenes?

Instead of simply ripping off the public under the guise of fiscal policy, now it’s done under the pretense of stopping climate change.

12. WEF Interested In Gun Control

Canada’s Liberal government unveiled proposals on Tuesday to tighten already tough gun control laws to address a spike in crimes involving firearms, including a deadly attack on a mosque last year.

The measures include enhanced background checks on people seeking to buy firearms, especially those with a history of violence. They also would oblige retailers to maintain adequate records of inventories and sales.

The World Economic Forum took notice of Bill C-71, introduced in 2018 to create a backdoor long gun registry, and to make it harder to own guns. In fact, WEF publishes many articles on the topic of guns, and gun control.

13. WEF’s Predicted Dystopian Paradise

You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.
Can’t really top that.

This has nothing to do with a virus. It is, and has always been, about implementing much larger social changes. Everything in the mainstream media is a lie.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-71: Backdoor Gun Registry

(Bill C-71, to restore the long gun registry)

One thing to point out right away: this bill is much more manageable to read than Bill C-69

CLICK HERE, for the full text of Bill C-71.

CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Firearms Act.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-19, Ending The Long Gun Registry Act
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Economic Action Plan Act

Here are some noteworthy changes

5(2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

REPLACEMENT
(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intim­ate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.

For greater certainty

(2.‍1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of paragraph (2)‍(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network

19(1.1) and (2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Target practice or competition

(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.
Marginal note:

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1), between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(b)

REPLACEMENT

4 (1) Subsections 19(1.‍1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Target practice or competition

(1.‍1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)‍(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must — except in the case of an authorization that is issued for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.

Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns

(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm — other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.‍1) or a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)‍(b).

Section 23 of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
1995, c. 39, s. 23; 2003, c. 8, s. 17; 2012, c. 6, s. 11; 2015, c. 27, s. 7.
Previous Version
Marginal note:

Voluntary request to Registrar
23.1 (1) A transferor referred to in section 23 may request that the Registrar inform the transferor as to whether the transferee, at the time of the transfer, holds and is still eligible to hold the licence referred to in paragraph 23(a), and if such a request is made, the Registrar or his or her delegate, or any other person that the federal Minister may designate, shall so inform the transferor.
Marginal note:

No record of request
(2) Despite sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act, neither the Registrar or his or her delegate nor a designated person shall retain any record of a request made under subsection (1).

REPLACEMENT

5 Sections 23 and 23.‍1 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms

23 (1) A person may transfer one or more non-restricted firearms if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm;
(b) the Registrar has, at the transferor’s request, issued a reference number for the transfer and provided it to the transferor; and
(c) the reference number is still valid.

Information — transferee’s licence

(2) The transferee shall provide to the transferor the prescribed information that relates to the transferee’s licence, for the purpose of enabling the transferor to request that the Registrar issue a reference number for the transfer.

Reference number

(3) The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.

Period of validity

(4) A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.

Registrar not satisfied

(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.

Ending the Long Gun Registry Act of 2012
ORIGINAL

Non-application
(3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force before section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is replaced by the following:
17. Paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(5) If section 17 of this Act comes into force before section 29 of the other Act, then, on the day on which that section 29 comes into force, paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

(6) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is deemed to have come into force before that section 29 and subsection (5) applies as a consequence.

(7) On the first day on which both section 30 of the other Act and section 17 of this Act are in force, paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Firearms Act are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual holds an authorization to transport it and satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and

REPLACEMENT

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

Amendments to the Act

2015, c. 36, s. 230

23 (1) Subsection 29(3) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have been amended by section 230 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1.

2015, c. 36, s. 230

(2) Subsections 29(4) to (7) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act are deemed never to have come into force and are repealed.

2015, c. 36, s. 231

24 Section 30 of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.

Biggest takeaway here is that Bill C-71 is an effort to resurrect the Long Gun Registry

While there are some virtue signals about safety, the main objective is clearly undoing the 2011-2012 legislation.

Posted on

Canada’s Bill C-75 (Watering Down Penalties for Terrorism, Rioting, Weapons)

(The Canadian Criminal Code, which typically gets amended every year)

Criminal offences in Canada are categorized like this

SUMMARY OFFENCE: more minor, lesser penalties (misdemeanor)
INDICTABLE OFFENCE: more serious, harsher penalties (felony)
HYBRID OFFENCE: Prosecutor has discretion as to proceed “summarily” or “by indictment”

For a good video on this subject, Julie Mora posted a video seen here. It had 2 parts: (a) an expanded gun registry, Bill C-71, and (b) changes to the Canadian Criminal Code, Bill C-75. Julie is a fine blogger, and her videos are well worth a watch by all Canadians. She claims in this video that the bill will “hybridize” many serious charges, meaning that they may now be tried summarily. And she is right. Below are the major points.

This is not trivial at all. Terrorism and rioting offence should be treated seriously. Yet, if this bill were actually to pass, the penalties for serious crimes may be gutted. True, for hybrid offences, Prosecutors could still choose to try the case by indictment. However, most people would agree that the option should not exist

Relevant links are below:
CLICK HERE for the Criminal Code as it currently exists.
CLICK HERE for the Liberal Bill C-75.

ORIGINAL

Marginal note:
Punishment of rioter
65 (1) Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Marginal note:
Concealment of identity
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Punishment of rioter
65 (1) Every person who takes part in a riot is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Concealment of identity
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Neglect by peace officer
69 A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

REPLACEMENT

Neglect by peace officer
69 A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within their jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Possession without lawful excuse
82 (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, makes or has in the possession or under the care or control of the person any explosive substance is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

REPLACEMENT

14 Subsection 82(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Possession of explosive
82 (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, makes or has in their possession or under their care or control any explosive substance is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Financing of Terrorism
Marginal note:
Providing or collecting property for certain activities
83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of terrorist activity in subsection 83.01(1), or
(b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Providing or collecting property for certain activities
83.‍02 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes
83.03 Every one who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services
(a) intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity, or
(b) knowing that, in whole or part, they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Providing, making available, etc.‍, property or services for terrorist purposes
83.‍03 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes
83.04 Every one who
(a) uses property, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, or
(b) possesses property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes

83.‍04 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction

ORIGINAL

Offences — freezing of property, disclosure or audit
83.12 (1) Every one who contravenes any of sections 83.08, 83.1 and 83.11 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Paragraphs 83.‍12(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both.

ORIGINAL

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

REPLACEMENT

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.‍18 (1) Every person who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group
83.181 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years

REPLACEMENT

21 Section 83.‍181 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group
83.‍181 Every person who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.‍18(1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences
83.221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

REPLACEMENT

22 Subsection 83.‍221(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences
83.‍221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction

ORIGINAL

Concealing person who carried out terrorist activity
83.23 (1) Everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(a) for a term of not more than 14 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to imprisonment for life; and
(b) for a term of not more than 10 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to any other punishment.

REPLACEMENT

Concealing person who carried out terrorist activity
83.‍23 (1) Every person who knowingly harbours or conceals another person whom they know to be a person who has carried out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling that other person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to imprisonment for life; and
(b) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the person who is harboured or concealed carried out a terrorist activity that is a terrorism offence for which that person is liable to any other punishment.

ORIGINAL

Concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity
(2) Everyone who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

REPLACEMENT

Concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity
(2) Every person who knowingly harbours or conceals another person whom they know to be a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling that other person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction

ORIGINAL

Person to be brought before judge
(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of the warrant shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause them to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or released on recognizance, with or without sureties.

REPLACEMENT

25 Subsection 83.‍29(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Person to be brought before judge
(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of a warrant shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or make a release order, the form of which may be adapted to suit the circumstances

[Note: the new wording is such that is seems intended to make it easier to release suspected terrorists]

ORIGINAL

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

REPLACEMENT

27 Paragraph 95(2)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ORIGINAL

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence

96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.
Marginal note:
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

REPLACEMENT

28 Paragraph 96(2)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

As absurd as it sounds, here is the “SUMMARY” of Bill C-75.

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for life and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) allow the court to exempt an offender from the requirement to pay a victim surcharge if the offender satisfies the court that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship, provide the court with guidance as to what constitutes undue hardship, provide that a victim surcharge is to be paid for each offence, with an exception for certain administration of justice offences if the total amount of surcharges imposed on an offender for those types of offences would be disproportionate in the circumstances, require courts to provide reasons for granting any exception for certain administration of justice offences or any exemption from the requirement to pay a victim surcharge and clarify that the amendments described in this paragraph apply to any offender who is sentenced after the day on which they come into force, regardless of whether or not the offence was committed before that day; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.

The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.

Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Bill C-75 is too long to possibly cover entirely in one article, though this is the most serious of it.

Having much smaller bills introduced would certainly be preferable. Far too often, governments ram through much unrelated material into a bill, called “omnibus bills”, such that proper debate never actually happens.

A more thorough debate could be had if this were broken up into 6-8 separate bills

And just reiterate, terrorism and other major crimes should always be tried by indictment.