Islam Archives - Canuck Law

June 8, 2021December 31, 2021

London Hit-And-Run: Heinous Crime, Or Well Funded Anti-Racism Psy-Op?

Around this time last year, we had the George Floyd racism psy-op. Trudeau took part in protests, despite making a complete mockery of the CV psy-op. Understandably, a lot of people were confused by this. Even Theresa Tam supported such protests, as long as people wore masks. How things change.

The novel coronavirus is responsible for destroying economies everywhere (we are told), but as long as woke causes are being protested, it stays away. How considerate.

Now, in the wake of 4 people being killed in London, ON, Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau have apparently both showed up to a crowded vigil. This comes in the middle of (what they call) the 3rd wave of a deadly pandemic. However, people are not dropping dead.

Conservative Party Leader Erin O’Toole also saw fit to attend this memorial.

Disclaimer: while there is a lot that still needs to be shared publicly, everything about this incident so far seems to be off. That said, things could actually be exactly as they reported.

CBC staff typically go out of their way to avoid mentioning details about the background of a suspect in a crime. However, that isn’t the case here.

Doug Ford has imposed what are possibly the greatest restrictions to civil rights anywhere in North America. However, he’s quite fine with making exceptions to gatherings when it comes to a public memorial and condemnation of white supremacy and white violence.

Apparently, the deadliest virus in history is respectful enough not to attack helpless people at such vigils. That is one smart virus.

Now, this is giving some strange vibes. What could possibly be causing doubt of the official narrative?

Remember this? A few years back, an 11 year old girl and her 8 year old brother staged a hate crime. Who comes up with such an idea for a hoax? This was perpetuated in the media long after it had been exposed as a hoax, in order to drum up racial tensions in Canada.

ORGANIZATION	YEAR	AMOUNT
Acte D’Amour	Mar. 1, 2021	$12,000
Afro-Canadian Caribbean Society Of Hamilton	Mar. 26, 2021	$30,000
Angels of Hope Against Human Trafficking	Mar. 3, 2021	$196,880
Aroha Fine Arts	Apr. 9, 2021	$10,500
Association Francophone De Brooks	Feb. 20, 2021	$6,200
Bluff Productions	Mar. 1, 2021	$7,500
Calgary Police Service	Mar. 23, 2021	$18,200
Canadian Council Of Business Leaders Against Systemic Anti-Black Racism	Mar. 30, 2021	$10,000
Canadian Society For Yad Vashem	Apr. 8, 2021	$10,000
Carrefour Communautaire Franophone De London	Feb. 25, 2021	$34,000
Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi De Cote Des Neiges	Feb. 1, 2021	$10,000
Centre Francophone De Toronto	Mar. 6, 2021	$30,000
Compagnie Theatre Creole	Apr. 1, 2021	$10,000
Cumberland African Nova Scotian Association	Feb. 25, 2021	$34,000
Ethnik Festivals Association	Feb. 20, 2021	$19,000
Francophones For Sustainable Environment	Feb. 26, 2021	$17,610
Hot Doc’s	Apr. 29, 2021	$25,000
Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria	Mar. 30, 2021	$19,800
Legacy Of Hope Foundation	Apr. 1, 2021	$96,000
Legal Assistance Of Windsor	Mar. 1, 2021	$269,709
Maybellearts	Apr. 1, 2021	$10,000
Multicultural Health Broker’s Init.	Apr. 1, 2021	$303,000
Nigerian Canadians for Cultural, Educational & Economic Progress	Mar. 9, 2021	$25,000
Oromocto Special Care Home	Mar. 31, 2021	$7,771
Overture With The Arts	Feb. 1, 2021	$18,000
Overture With The Arts	Feb. 1, 2021	$6,000
Overture With The Arts	Feb. 1, 2021	$5,800
Regina Open Door Society	Feb. 1, 2021	$1,690
Réseau d’action pour l’égalité des femmes immigrées et racisées du Québec	Apr. 1, 2021	$453,746
Shoe Project (The)	Mar. 7, 2021	$30,218
Silk Road Institute	Mar. 1, 2021	$14,000
Skills For Change Of Metro Toronto	Mar. 9, 2021	$30,000
Toronto Black Film Festival	Mar. 11, 2021	$29,347
Vues D’Afrique	Apr. 1, 2021	$25,000

A lot of taxpayer money is being spent to reinforce the idea that Canadians are racist. Of course, as long as such money is forthcoming, the problem is unlikely to disappear.

Keep in mind, these are only some of the recent grants provided by the Federal Government. Provinces and Municipalities are almost certainly kicking in large amounts of money as well.

As if on cue, Trudeau is pledging to fight “far right” groups, which is essentially anyone he ideologically disagrees with. How convenient this anti-Muslim attack gave him an excuse to go after such groups.

Waight told the news conference it wasn’t certain if the accused was affiliated with any specific hate group.

Never mind that this person isn’t alleged to be part of any hate group, but why should that get in the way of a good story? Perhaps there will a corresponding crack down on free speech to prevent the radicalization of such people in the future.

The Nova Scotia mass shooting in 2020 was used as an excuse to do a mass gun ban. It seems likely that this will be used for similar purposes.

(1) https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1401981291784986636
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/muslim-family-hit-run-targeted-1.6056238
(3) https://globalnews.ca/news/7930493/premier-doug-ford-london-attack-statement/
(4) https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/hijab-attack-claim-a-hoax-toronto-cops
(5) https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
(6) https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
(7) https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
(8) https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976
(9) https://twitter.com/680NEWS/status/1402413060808118274
(10) https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1402434857301692425
(11) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/canada-act-dismantle-far-groups-144551326.html
(12) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(13) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=agreement_start_date_s%20desc&page=1&search_text=racism

February 18, 2021August 7, 2022

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.

January 23, 2021March 15, 2022

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

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

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

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

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

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

3. Important Links

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

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

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

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

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

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

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

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

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

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

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

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

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

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

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

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

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

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

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

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

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

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

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

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

November 2, 2020December 25, 2023

Trudeau: Limit Free Speech To Curtail (Islamic) Violence

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes that we need to restrict free speech in order to prevent people — in this case Muslims — from becoming violent and injuring or killing people. He also thinks that such people have the right to keep their Canadian citizenship. (From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.

2. Trudeau (Sort Of) Defends Violence

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently commented on the recent terrorist attacks by Muslim migrants in France. The brutal slayings Trudeau referenced included the slaughter of three Christians at a Catholic Church in Nice, as well as the decapitation of a fourth grade teacher earlier this month.

The attacks were a response by a Muslim who answered the call to jihad against Samuel Paty, a history teacher. In his class, Paty showed a cartoon of Islam’s central figure, Mohammad, drawn by satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

To its credit, the French state stood firm on one of its foundational principles enshrined in law – the concept of laïcité, or official secularism. France is officially a secular state within which, people may worship as they see fit, but no religion may impose restrictions on the population for religious reasons. It also contains a strong precept of freedom of speech.

As a result of President Macron’s refusal to submit to sharia rules on images of Mohammad after the decapitation of the history teacher, leaders from the Islamic world condemned France, resulting in an increase of security globally at all French consulates and embassies.

Yesterday, Trudeau weighed in on the issue in his typical fashion, firmly taking both sides of the issue.

And yes, he certainly did.

There are always limits. In a pluralist, diverse, and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, our gestures, on others. Especially toward those communities and populations that still live in a system that continues to discriminate extensively.

This article and interview are posted on RAIR Foundation, USA. Recent terrorism attacks in France had been condemned by most, but justified by some others.

Trudeau refused to completely denounce the latest act of violence. Instead, he partially defends it, claiming that people need to be sensitive when it comes to other people’s beliefs and feelings. While true, Trudeau never really condemns the violence, and plays both sides.

Ironically, Trudeau actually has a moment of pure honesty. In pluralistic, diverse societies, free speech must be limited in order to maintain social harmony. He inadvertently makes a great argument against multiculturalism.

3. Islam Used As Weapon Against West

Some very obvious questions have to be asked.

First: Why are people of such an incompatible background brought over in such large numbers? There will never be integration, especially when many have no interest in doing so. So why is this really being done?

Second: There’s a financial drain on social services, one that isn’t addressed enough. Why isn’t it openly talked about more in the public sphere?

Third: Is cracking down on free speech one of the goals? Do politicians support mass migration of Muslims in order to create chaos, and force the need to have more control? Beyond simple replacement, is destabilization an objective in drafting these policies?

Fourth: Who’s opening the floodgates in the first place? Who’s making challenges in court, lobbying politicians, and trying to influence public opinion? Who’s really calling the shots? They can’t be oblivious to the consequences of these open borders policies.

Unfortunately, these questions won’t be answered by public officials. However, this site will try to.

Thank you to RAIR, and Sassy, for the translation.

June 8, 2020June 8, 2021

Media Culture Shift Well Underway To Accepting Wearing Mandatory Masks

What do these women have in common? They are all wearing mind control devices on their heads. It’s meant not just to control their thoughts and actions, but that of those around them, demonstrating their submission. Also see this and see this for those articles. More on the Muslims at the end.

Post of some random commenter on Toronto Star article.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

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

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

3. Important Links

4. Following Content Involves Speculation

This should go without saying, but I don’t know 100% that this is what they have in mind. Am trying to make sense of otherwise bizarre and random series of events. So take everything you read from that perspective.

5. Why Cover This Subject?

This may come off as alarmist, but will address it anyway. After seeing events unfold, it’s impossible to believe that events unfolding are not being done for public SAFETY, but for public CONTROL instead.

It’s really brilliant strategy. Shut down entire sectors of society and strip away civil rights. Inflict mental, financial and psychological stress to such a degree that people will be desperate to end it. BY end it, this means go back to the “new normal” as they call it, but ceding that certain rights will be gone forever.

Why do this? If people are willing to wear masks full time (and accept the health risks associated with them), then they will submit to nearly anything. Seeing widespread use in public will have the psychological effect of convincing doubters that there is a real health emergency.

Of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy element here. Wearing masks for a long time can cause breathing problems, or make existing ones worse. As such, it may be reported that more people are getting sick, presumably of this virus. Hence the need for more draconian measures.

When other more drastic events happen, such as protests over “systemic racism” across the Western World, the mask issue will get lost in the noise. This of course is done on purpose. Although no government official came out and said publicly this will be permanent, the end result is that it will be. That is of course, unless people stand up to it, and soon.

This is not about public safety, but about public control. And if people are willing to accept a “culture shift” where this becomes normal, what else would they accept?

Does this sound paranoid? Perhaps, but consider the following sections and topics before you decide.

6. Real Reason Tam Flip Flopped

Theresa Tam had been questioned why this change of heart happened. Cynics suggested she downplayed the situation to buy time so that China (where she’s from) could purchase Canadian supplies. While plausible, there is another possible motive, a psychological one.

If face masks had been made mandatory early on, there would likely have been public backlash. This is especially true since the death waves didn’t materialize. So the opposite approach was taken.

By intentionally causing a shortage of PPE, the Canadian Government can cause a panic in claiming that more cases are coming. This takes longer, but makes the shift a lot less obvious. Of course, people are desperate to get their livelihoods back after months long shutdown.

People can get back to work, but only if they wear a mask. And only if they accept other conditions, and conditions to be named later.

7. Culture Shift Is A Major Goal

OTTAWA — Ottawa’s top doctor suggests a “culture shift” is needed to accept people wearing masks or face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical Officer of Health Dr. Vera Etches has been recommending Ottawa residents wear masks to protect themselves from COVID-19 for several weeks.

Now, Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam are recommending Canadians wear non-medical face masks when maintaining a two-metre distance isn’t possible.

During a Town Hall with Ottawa’s Board of Trade on Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Etches suggested a “culture shift” is needed to accept wearing a face mask to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

Speaking on Newstalk 580 CFRA’s Ottawa Now with Kristy Cameron, Dr. Etches said wearing a mask or face covering is a “new behaviour” Canadians have never been asked to do before.

“It’s a new behaviour that we want to make more normal. So shifting the culture,” said Dr. Etches.

“Typically, previously before if we saw someone wearing a mask we’d wonder ‘oh, are they sick’ and be kind of concerned. I think what we’re looking for now is to recognize that people are wearing masks to protect others.”

Ottawa’s Emergency and Protective Services General Manager Anthony Di Monte told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that OC Transpo and Ottawa Public Health are working together on developing a policy for masks on OC Transpo buses and the O-Train.

Di Monte added he doesn’t think the city wants to explore a bylaw mandating people wear face masks in public places and businesses.

The Chair of the Board of Health, Councillor Keith Egli says Ottawa wants to get “buy-in” from the public on wearing masks, just like how everyone bought in to the need for physical distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“We’ve seen from the actions of our citizens in the past that they get the importance of physical distancing, and I’m confident they’ll get the importance of wearing a mask when that’s impossible.”

You heard it straight from the source. The goal is “shifting the culture” so that Canadians get used to wearing a mask in public. They would rather not push a law to mandate it, but instead get people to accept it internally.

Perhaps we are just animals who need to be trained in a new behaviour. Seems to be where things are going.

Why they would prefer to “shift the culture” as opposed to making such things mandatory? Quite simply, less backlash or chances to be challenged if the masses can be manipulated into doing it willingly.

8. Provinces Jump On Board

She said Public Health will be posting the updated recommendations on medical masks online today, noting that the recommendation isn’t mandatory and will allow for public health officers across Canada to consider their area’s needs.

In the hours after her announcement, public health officers from various provinces began echoing the recommendation. Dr. David Williams, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, said that as people continue to enter public settings they should be wearing non-medical masks.

“In certain situations such as transit where you cannot be assured that you’ll be able to guarantee that two metre or six foot distance, and we are recommending, strongly recommending the use of [a] facial covering, non-medical, in that time so as to prevent any further transmission to others and to respect their space as well as your space in that regard,” Williams said.

Quebec’s Deputy Premier Genevieve Guilbault also encouraged her province’s residents to adopt the habit of wearing a non-medical mask when in public.

“It’s a new habit that we’re going to have to develop and cultivate. It’s not instinctive for us and perhaps doesn’t come naturally for us yet to wear a face covering when you leave your home, but we must absolutely develop that habit,” she said, speaking in French.

Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Abdu Sharkawy said the latest recommendation is a prudent one, but cautioned that Canadians should not ease up on other public health efforts.

Whether they are complicit in the scam, or just useful idiots, Provincial politicians and officials are once again parroting the talking points of Theresa Tam. This comes despite her repeatedly giving contradictory information.

Forget the conflicting advice. Forget the computer modelling that has been laughably wrong. Forget about the people who have recovered and internally developed antibodies. Don’t stop to think that if this virus (assuming it exists) was anywhere near as deadly as predicted, people would be dropping like flies.

9. Alberta Begins Mask Program

Quebec is asking its residents to wear a mask if they leave their house. Alberta’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw said her recommendation is for Albertans to wear a mask if they are going somewhere where they will be two metres from another person.

Hinshaw also stressed that wearing a mask does not replace public health measures.
.
“Even if someone is wearing a mask, it’s still really important to try and maintain that distancing as much as possible. There may be a mistaken impression that if a group of friends want to get together and have a party, as long as everyone is wearing a cloth mask, they can do so and there’s no problem at all,” she said.

Yes, people should be wearing masks, but don’t assume you would otherwise still enjoy your freedoms.

10. Quebec “Strongly Recommends” Masks

Premier Francois Legault, his health minister and the public health director all donned masks as they entered a media briefing in Quebec City – the first time they have done so. “A good way to greatly reduce the contagion is to wear a mask,” Legault said. “We strongly recommend that you do so.

But Legault said the province won’t make masks mandatory for now, unlike such places as France and New York State, where they are required while using public transit.

Legault said the government doesn’t want to discriminate against those who are unable to buy or make their own masks. Legault also said it would be difficult legally to order that masks be worn, because they haven’t been proven to be 100 per cent effective in stopping the spread of the virus.

But Montreal civil rights lawyer Julius Grey said the mask doesn’t need to be perfectly effective to be made mandatory. It is enough that the benefit be “reasonably probable” to gain an exemption under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – which outlines a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society, he said.

Grey said forcing people to wear masks might infringe on individual rights but it would be considered a “reasonable limit” as long as the mask rules were not too draconian.

“It’s only common sense,” Grey said. “These are charter rights, but they can be limited for something as serious as COVID.”Grey noted that the Quebec government’s own secularism law prohibits certain public servants deemed to be in positions of authority – including teachers, judges and police officers – from wearing religious symbols, such as turbans, kippas and hijabs.

“How is it they can prohibit the hijab, but they can’t mandate and enforce the mask for public safety?” Grey asked with a laugh.

Grey noted that most physical distancing measures introduced since COVID-19 raise charter issues. He said that’s likely to repeat when a vaccine for coronavirus emerges, given there are many opposed to vaccination despite the need to protect society as a whole.

Quebec’s public health department last month began offering instructions for homemade masks. And last week, Montreal’s transit authority announced it would distribute 600,000 masks in the coming weeks to transit users, saying they would not be obligatory because it wouldn’t be able to enforce the rule.

Quebec public health director Dr. Horacio Arruda said Tuesday he wouldn’t hesitate to make masks compulsory if necessary. “But when we make it mandatory, we will make sure that people who cannot afford them cannot be discriminated against compared to those who can,” Arruda told reporters.

So it’s not being made mandatory in Quebec, at least for now. However the goal is to apply social pressure to people into conforming, to get the public to force skeptics into compliance.

Masks are being given out for free. Of course they are. If you want someone to submit to absurd demands, then make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Interestingly, this puts Quebec in the strange position of proposing mandatory masks for health reasons, even as they banned face coverings for being a security risk, and diluting their culture.

It’s rather disturbing to see this article. While it is cloaked in the language of “strongly recommended”, it also clearly talks about making it mandatory, and whether it would survive a Charter challenge in court.

11. New Brunswick & Mandatory Masks

The province also announced new rules for wearing face masks.
.
“When outside of the home, and in any location in which physical distancing of 2 metres is not possible, people must wear a face covering that covers their mouth and nose,” the government said in a news release. “Effective June 9, everyone entering a building open to the general public must wear a face covering. Children under the age of two, children of any age while attending licensed early education and childcare facilities, and those unable to wear face coverings due to medical issues are exempt from these requirements.”

On June 5th, the New Brunswick Government announced that masks would be mandatory for entering any public building as of June 9th. That was reversed a day later, which sounds great. However, the reversal was not one of principle, but of putting extra burdens on people. Potentially it could still happen later.

11. Cities Implementing Mask Use

Toronto Mayor John Tory has given consideration to the idea, but hasn’t made it law yet.

MONTREAL — A municipality on the island of Montreal is boasting that it has become the first jurisdiction in Canada to make wearing a mask mandatory for anyone entering a business or a city-owned building.

Cote St-Luc Mayor Mitchell Brownstein said his council passed the bylaw on Monday, and businesses have two weeks to comply. Fines for businesses and individuals who violate the bylaw range from $100 to $500, he said.

Brownstein said all business owners will be required to post a sign provided by the city alerting clients to wear a mask upon entry. He said exceptions will be made for people with asthma or other health conditions or disabilities preventing them from wearing masks.

He said his office researched the situation across the country and found no other town or province that has gone this far. “We want to make Cote St-Luc the safest place for people to shop, and hopefully the provinces in Canada will follow,” Brownstein said in an interview Tuesday.

On Monday, Ottawa’s transit commission voted to make mask-wearing on public transit mandatory starting June 15, but officials said they will not prohibit unmasked people from boarding.

Cote St-Luc has gone further and made masks mandatory. Let’s see how long this lasts.

Even within businesses, this mind control can be implemented. By denying people access without masks, such as Whole Foods, Longo’s, it makes submission more and more likely

Granted, retailers may ease up. However, it’s chilling to see them risk losing customers to this hoax. But as long as the businesses are doing it voluntarily, it’s not government overreach.

An article by VICE inadvertently looks at the issue in a different light. Could demanding your own subjugation be viewed as a human right worth striking over?

And no, this is by no means limited to Canada. Parts of the United States and other countries are also implementing various degrees of the same program.

That one is from New Mexico, but the same idea applies.

12. Mandatory Masks On Travel

COVID-19 is a global public health challenge that has changed the daily lives of people around the world, and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians remains the Government of Canada’s top priority.

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, announced new measures requiring all air passengers to have a non-medical mask or face covering to cover their mouth and nose during travel. These measures come into effect at noon EDT on April 20, 2020.

Domestic travel has now been somewhat reopened. The catch? Submitting to wearing a mask. This on top of the other nonsense that is pushed on passengers.

This is also being done by ebus.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, who “identifies” as a conservative, announced on June 3rd that face masks will be mandatory for public transit. It was such as urgent matter it won’t actually be implemented until July 2nd.

This is problem isn’t just in Canada. Take a look at our Southern neighbour, and you will see some of the same behaviour.

Certainly images like this (forcing people off buses), create bad optics for officials, but there are other ways to achieve the same goals.

13. Anthony Fauci Flip Flops On Masks

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1246790212694487040
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1246210376351592448
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1244020292365815809

Not only have Canadian officials been laughably incompetent, but so have the American ones. Fauci of course is the public face, but the Surgeon General seems to toe the line. However, one might ask if this had been calculated ahead of time: to appear to be unprepared in order to frighten the public.

Dr. Anthony Fauci now says that a second wave of COVID-19 may not even happen and that wearing a mask is largely symbolic at this point.

In a Wednesday interview with CNN’s “Newsroom,” Fauci — member of the White House’s coronavirus task force — said that a second COVID-19 wave is not necessarily inevitable.

“We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you’re reopening,” Fauci explained. “We don’t have to accept that as an inevitability.”

Anthony Fauci has finally admitted that masks really are just symbolic, and that the dreaded “repeat waves” were just speculation. So the U.S. was largely shut down on guesswork.

14. Press Briefings Are Hoax

These press conferences are a farce in the sense that the reporters are wearing masks strictly for show. They take them off as soon as the camera is off. And the President doesn’t even bother.

Despite the obvious signs that this is a hoax, on the state level, mask requirements are piling up. The site, MASKS4ALL.CO tracks it by state level. So far, 14 have statewide orders. The website also recommends contacting your Member of Congress to push for wider laws.

15. Worthless Computer Modelling

Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020

To long to go into here, but the computer modelling used to make these predictions has been debunked. In fact, the researchers have a long history of overinflated predictions. To be clear, modelling isn’t proof of anything — it’s guesswork. Yet major decisions are made because of it.

For a great summary of this, Jill Colton did a video on it. She drops a lot of truth bombs in it.

16. Shift To Race Riot Psy-Op

The murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin made international news. The video is still widely available online, which is strange considering the censorship levels that YouTube and other outlets engage in.

Another obvious thing: it wasn’t Derek Chauvin that did this. Look at the side by side pictures (one of the perpetrator, the other of Derek Chauvin’s mugshots. They look nothing alike, yet the media is being silent on it. Chauvin isn’t the man responsible, and in retrospect, we don’t even know that Floyd is dead, or that it was even him.

One would think that having the police department burned down would cause someone to speak out publicly that the man who allegedly killed Floyd wasn’t the officer in question. If telling the crowd that “it wasn’t one of our people” doesn’t work, what approach would you take?

Of course, don’t expect the mainstream media to cover this story properly. Here is Jennifer Mayerle perpetuating the coronavirus psy-op with her mask, while she covers the George Floyd psy-op in her talk. Mayerle clearly has trouble breathing with her mask on (just listen to her), but the act must keep going.

This is from NBC News. How messed up is it to be forced play along with the “pandemic” psy-op, while being charged with serious crimes resulting from the Floyd psy-op?

See how effective this has been? By intentionally shutting down entire sectors of society, governments have made people desperate to return to normal. And they can, if a few freedoms are permanently given away.

Now that the media attention is focused on rioting (from the psy-op listed earlier), the media has a new crisis to focus on. Wearing masks is “the new normal”. We need to move on and focus on the systemic racism that is breaking our nations apart.

17. Tam Supports Protest, Wear A Mask

https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976

Forget all that “social distancing” that was all the rage before. Forget about staying at home whenever possible, and avoiding crowds. None of that matters anymore. Protesting is totally fine, just WEAR A MASK.

18. Protesting Exemption For Racism

This is disturbing on many levels. Then man pretending to be Trudeau, and his adoring public, are wearing useless masks to protect themselves from a fake pandemic. While doing that, they are taking a knee to atone for the non-existent problem of systemic racism. Of course, the real Trudeau has worn blackface several times, and openly calls Canadians “racist”.

It’s hard to tell how many people actually are taking this seriously. Nonetheless, it is chilling to see Canada, or anyone, go down this path.

Nonetheless, there has been a very successful bait and switch performed here. The “planned-emic” started out in slow motion, but then more and more rights were taken away. The economy is slowing being allowed to reopen, but in a controlled fashion. The new normal is one where face coverings will be expected, if not required or legislated.

Of course the obvious question has to be asked: why in the world would Tam, or anyone RECOMMEND that people attending protests on these loaded subjects conceal their faces? Is the goal to create anarchy and chaos?

19. Make Public Submission Easy/Affordable

Alberta plans, at least for now, to make free masks available virtually everywhere to encourage their use. Make Albertans think these free gifts are for their benefit.

There’s actually a trend that is emerging: deny a person access to a place of business, but provide free masks at the entrance. The reason? To make it “easier” for people to go about their day. Just one catch: they must agree to a face covering.

The plan of course being to change behaviour and culture in the long term.

20. Parallel With Islamic Head Coverings

Okay, we finally get to the topic of contrasting the forced wearing of face masks with forcing girls and women to wear the hijab. There are a lot of the same techniques at play here.

Wear a hijab as part of 1 world vision
Wear a hijab to show you’re not a bigot
Wear a hijab as an act of solidarity
Wear a hijab to avoid harassment/rape
Wear a hijab to avoid being arrested
Wear a hijab to avoid being killed

World Hijab Day is a real thing: it’s to celebrate the head coverings, even for people who aren’t Muslims. Of course, this all looks fine and dandy. Never mind the very real fact that in many countries, women don’t have the choice, but are forced to wear one.

Then there is this approach: if you won’t wear a hijab in order to avoid harassment or sexual assault, do it to avoid Islamophobia and show tolerance. Remember, not all Muslims are bad people, and you should be more accepting of them.

Yes, wearing a hijab to show solidarity with the group is something that has been suggested by both Muslims, and non-Muslim useful idiots.

According to the EU Times, even in 2016, Austrian girls were putting the hijab on to prevent assault and harassment from Muslim men. Despite the girls not being Muslim, or having anything to do with that culture, they WILLINGLY put the headscarf on in order to protect themselves. Many would say that not allowing such incompatible people in would be a great idea. Many would support deporting such people. Instead, the pressure is put on locals to conform for their own safety.

Also see this video by One America News Network.

In other countries, women are actually arrested for refusing to wear the hijab. Punishment can come in the forms of a fine, lashings, imprisonment, or a combination thereof. Remember, in the West, people are told to embrace the hijab as empowerment.

Not the first honour killing to happen. A 16 year old was killed by her brother and father, at least partially, for refusing to wear a hijab. This happened in Canada.

Many women will say they wear it willingly, but are they really? Some will yes, but is fear of harassment, abuse, rape, or arrest contributing to many more wearing it? Is it really a choice when it is made under duress? How much is due to family pressure?

21. Consequence Of Mask Refusal

The comparison of face masks to the Muslim head scarf may seem absurd on the surface, but consider what is happening already in parts of the West.

People are being fined for refusing to wear one
People are prohibited from taking public transit
People are prohibited from flying without a mask
People are prohibited from entering certain stores
Certain jobs now require a mask at all times

Certainly, there isn’t an exact duplication, but there are parallels. Even in the West, women began “willingly” wearing the headscarf to avoid physical and emotional attacks.

The virus mask, on the other hand, seems to be enforced with a more Chinese style “social credit” type of way. Restrict things that the public is allowed to access without it.

In both cases, mental manipulation is required to sustain it.

May 13, 2020April 8, 2023

TSCE #9: Bill C-32/C-75; Lowered Age Of Consent; Reduced Penalties For Crimes Against Children

In 2016, Justin Trudeau announced that it was a priority to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. This was done under the guise of equality, and not treating people differently due to sexual orientation.

A mea culpa to begin with: although Bill C-75 was covered in the fall of 2018 (see previous review), it seems that I missed the more subtle aspect of the bill. Watering down penalties for terrorism offences was only part of it. C-75 was also a smokescreen for bringing more degeneracy to Canada, but under the radar. Yes, most terrorism committed in the West is done by Muslims, and that was how to accomplish this.

The agenda can be summarized as such:

Focus on ideology, reduced terrorism penalties
Let other perversions slip through

Most commentators (yes, guilty here too), focused on the terrorism and let far too much of the other content go pretty much unnoticed. It’s time to fix that.

One particular example, was the Prime Minister using the opportunity to slip in a clause to lower the age of consent (for anal) from 18 years old to 16, by repealing Section 159 of the Criminal Code. It was previously introduced in Bill C-32, but because of a public backlash, it never got past first reading. By embedding it in Bill C-75 instead, it passed almost unnoticed.

After some serious thought, this article will be made part of the TSCE series (trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation). The reason being, that Bill C-75 makes it easier to harm children by reducing the penalties for child predators and child sex predators.

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

Criminal Code
Amendment to the Act
R.‍S.‍, c. 9 (3rd Supp.‍), s. 3
1 Section 159 of the Criminal Code is repealed.

Clause 1: Existing text of section 159:
.
159 (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

Yes, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was apparently a priority of the Trudeau Government from early on. One has to wonder why there is this level of pandering. A cynic may suspect there could be a personal stake in getting the age lowered.

However, the public was very unhappy and suspicious about this bill, and why this was a priority for the government. What is interesting is that although Bill C-32 never got past first reading, the idea of lowering the age of consent still went ahead. Instead, it would be slipped into Bill C-75.

A serious alternative: if Trudeau wants all sexual acts to be treated the same, what would be wrong with RAISING the age of consent for all acts to 18? This is normal in many countries.

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

Yes, just a single line in Bill C-75 mentions the repeal of Section 159 of the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, if you didn’t know what to look for, or didn’t have a copy handy. you wouldn’t know what it meant.

Think this over: Bill C-32 was met with public hostility over the proposal to lower the age of consent for anal sex. So that Bill is allowed to die, while the provision is slipped into Bill C-75.

Keep talking about (Islamic) terrorism, penalties
Let other degeneracy, perversions go ahead

The sleight-of-hand worked out as planned. While Canadians were rightly shocked at the prospect of having terrorism offences hybridized (available for either summary or indictable method for trial), instead of only the more serious indictable, this was allowed to pass. That way, the other items would get little to no scrutiny. And yes, this site is also guilty of the oversight.

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

These are the areas of Bill C-75 which the media focused on. Certainly, they are very serious, and need to be addressed. These are the offences which are now “hybridized”, meaning they are eligible to be tried summarily.

Section 52: Sabotage
Section 65: Rioting
Section 69: Neglect by peace officer
Section 82: Possession of explosives
Section 83.02: Providing property for certain purposes
Section 83.03: Making services/property available for terrorism
Section 83.04: Using property for terrorism purposes
Section 83.18(1): Participation in terrorist activity
Section 83.181: Leaving Canada to participate in terrorism
Section 83.23(1): Concealing who carried out terrorism
Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14

Now let’s briefly address some of the more disturbing aspects of Bill C-75 that weren’t covered by the mainstream or alternative media.

Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
Section 291(1): Bigamy
Section 293: Polygamy
Section 293.1: Forced marriage
Section 293.2: Child marriage
Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

See what’s going on here? The focus is on some of the more blatant and obvious crimes, and how they have become “hybridized” offences. Yet some extremely serious ones are mostly ignored, despite the same thing happening to them.

In later sections of the bill, it discusses access to justice, and reducing the standards for accused people to be released until trial.

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

Corrupting children
172 (1) Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

172 (1) Every person who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and by doing so endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, 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.
(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 6]

Indecent acts
173 (1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.

Yes, corrupting children, and committing indecent acts against children now, thanks to the Trudeau Government, are eligible to be tried summarily. How exactly does this help protect children? The punishments for doing these crimes are reduced.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.

Also worth noting is that Section 181 (spreading fake news to create mischief) has been repealed as a criminal offence.

Marginal note:
Dead body
182 Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178

note:
Dead body
182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 1822019, c. 25, s. 63

Interfering with a dead body, even indecent interference, or indignity to a corpse can now be tried summarily.

Neglect to obtain assistance in child-birth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result thereof or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result thereof, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 226

Neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth
242 A female person who, being pregnant and about to be delivered, with intent that the child shall not live or with intent to conceal the birth of the child, fails to make provision for reasonable assistance in respect of her delivery is, if the child is permanently injured as a result of the failure or dies immediately before, during or in a short time after birth, as a result of the failure, 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.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 242 2019, c. 25, s. 82

Yes, it’s no big deal if you don’t bother to call for help when about to give birth. If the child dies, covering it up doesn’t seem very important either. What a twisted direction to be going.

Concealing body of child
243 Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 227

Concealing body of child
243 Every person who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, 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.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 243 2019, c. 25, s. 82

As for those people wanting to participate in multiple marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, or other such abominations, guess what? Lesser penalties are heading your way.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Polygamy
293 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into any form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage; or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in paragraph (a).

Polygamy typically involves one man having several wives. It opens the door to abuse and exploitation, since the “wives” generally don’t have the same rights as the man. Of course, there is nothing to say that these are child marriages and/or forced marriages.

Forced marriage
293.1 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9.

Forced marriage
293.1 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against their will 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
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115.

Forced marriage amounts to sex slavery. Typically, it is a very young girl forced to “marry” a much, MUCH older man. What sane person would make this eligible to be tried as a summary offence? This crosses the line for any so-called cultural accommodations and crosses into (child) exploitation.

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
2015, c. 29, s. 9

Marriage under age of 16 years
293.2 Every person who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is under the age of 16 years 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.
2015, c. 29, s. 92019, c. 25, s. 115

Given that very young children are not able to give informed consent, would this not be the same exploitation and child sex slavery as addressed above?

Marginal note:
Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 29

Pretending to solemnize marriage
294 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority; or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 2942018, c. 29, s. 292019, c. 25, s. 116.

Why would someone pretend to solemnize a marriage? It could be because the terms of the marriage would not be accepted in everyday society, such as child marriages, or forced marriages.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Arson for fraudulent purpose
435 (1) Every person who, with intent to defraud any other person, causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns, in whole or in part, the property, 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.

So burning down your place of business or home (and endangering the public) could possibly be tried summarily. Just make sure that you set the fire for the insurance money.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Participation in activities of criminal organization
467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization 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.

Smuggling children across the border, or providing children for these marriages could be considered organized crime. Perhaps that is why they were included in the hybridization list.

And of course, lowering the age of consent for anal sex was addressed in previous sections. There are many provisions in Bill C-75 that were not addressed. The likely reason was that the terrorism changes made were so shocking.

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

CanadianAllianceForSexWorkLawReform-e
The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform made a submission for the Bill C-75 hearings, asking for restrictions to sex work be removed. The rationale being that having portions of the “job” that were not fully legal endangered the workers and limited their access to courts and the police if need be.

UNICEFCanada-e
UNICEF also made a submission in the hearings. They claim that their mandate is to advocate for the well being of all children. That extends to both child victims of crime, and child criminals. While the intent may be good, foreign institutions should not be trying to influence Canadian law.

CanadianCentreForGenderSexualDiversity-e
The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity made a submission, including a list of items they thought should have been included in Bill C-75.
1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
4-Bill C-75 fails to properly define marginalized person

VancouverRapeReliefAndWomensShelter-e
The Vancouver Rape Relief wrote in support of the “reverse-onus” burden in domestic violence cases, where men would have to show that they deserve bail. However, the group laments that “rich white men” will be able to get off the hook, while men of colour will more often remain locked up. Oh, intersectionality at its finest.

CanadianCentreForChildProtection-e
The Canadian Center for Child Protection spoke very critically about certain changes which would weaken the penalties for abduction of children and forced marriages. A well written piece, but pretty sad that these facts need to be stated.

It was also addressed in the previous review that changes were being made to (for the most part) make it easier for accused criminals to get out on bail and to remain out even when breaching conditions. Crime just isn’t something the government takes seriously.

6. Liberals All Voted For This

All Liberal MPs voted for Bill C-75. Every single one who was in the House of Commons. They all voted for a Bill that reduces the criminal penalties for terrorism offences, and crimes against children. Regardless of whether the vote was whipped (it probably was), MPs in the government should have been standing up against this.

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

The review from 2018 seems to be incomplete, so a follow up was called for. While terrorism related charged were prominent in the bill, there were many other things that needed to be addressed as well.

Slipping in content from Bill C-32 (lowering the age of consent for anal sex) was just one thing that wasn’t discussed in the media. Seems that when Bill C-32 died, the discussion died as well. A cynic might wonder if the exclusive focus on the terrorism elements was deliberate.

(a) Focus on the reduced penalties for terrorism offences
(b) Ignore the degeneracy, child exploitation aspects of the bill

In watering down penalties in this manner, the Trudeau Government puts people — particularly children — in danger. It is difficult to comprehend how this makes children safer when the potential punishments for crimes against children are reduced.

Under the guise of criminal justice reform, the Trudeau Government is making it more likely that children will continue to be harmed. After all, Bill C-75 reduces potential penalties for serious crimes against children.

Hopefully this gives a more rounded summary of Bill C-75 than the what last article did.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-75-watering-down-penalties-for-terrorism-rioting-weapons/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8587634
(3) http://archive.is/p1AqH
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(5) http://archive.is/QYxr0
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) http://archive.is/efXwo

Share this:

Like this:

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

2. Quotes From The Article

3. Selective Outrage Over Gharbi Shooting

Share this:

Like this:

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

3. Important Links

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

Share this:

Like this:

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

2. Trudeau (Sort Of) Defends Violence

3. Islam Used As Weapon Against West

Share this:

Like this:

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

3. Important Links

4. Following Content Involves Speculation

5. Why Cover This Subject?

6. Real Reason Tam Flip Flopped

7. Culture Shift Is A Major Goal

8. Provinces Jump On Board

9. Alberta Begins Mask Program

10. Quebec “Strongly Recommends” Masks

11. New Brunswick & Mandatory Masks

11. Cities Implementing Mask Use

12. Mandatory Masks On Travel

13. Anthony Fauci Flip Flops On Masks

14. Press Briefings Are Hoax

15. Worthless Computer Modelling

16. Shift To Race Riot Psy-Op

17. Tam Supports Protest, Wear A Mask

18. Protesting Exemption For Racism

19. Make Public Submission Easy/Affordable

20. Parallel With Islamic Head Coverings

21. Consequence Of Mask Refusal

Share this:

Like this:

1. Bill C-32 Introduced In November 2016

2. Bill C-75 Brought In March 2018

3. Bill C-75 Used Partly To Divert Attention

4. Hybridization Of Offences Continues

5. Submissions In Bill C-75 Hearings

6. Liberals All Voted For This

7. More Then Just Terrorism At Stake

Share this:

Like this: