Victorian Premier Dan Andrews declaring martial law in that part of Australia. This is despite the PCR tests not actually being scientifically valid. Even the Australian Department of Health admits it.
1. 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 examples: 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.
Asked how soon Australia was likely to see an opening of its international borders, Professor Kelly said it was partly dependent on the development of a successful and globally available vaccine.
Australia would need to track infection rates in other countries and study their modelling as they passed the peak of infection rates.
Coronavirus reinfection
.
The Department of Health notes that current tests do not distinguish been live and non-infective RNA (ribonucleic acid) and that most recovering patients develop strong antibodies.
This suggests that the chance of widespread reinfection across the community is not likely.
“There have been reports of apparent reinfection in a small number of cases,” the Department of Health states on its website.
It was admitted back in April that the PCR tests can’t distinguish between live and non-infective virus strains. So the test is basically useless. Nonetheless, the Australian Government (like all of them), is pushing ahead with the vaccine agenda.
4. Royal Aust College of General Practitioners
It is important to note that the relatively small numbers of cases in South Korea were tested within seven to 14 days after apparent recovery, according to the Australian Department of Health (DoH).
‘It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR [polymerase chain reaction] tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and non-infective RNA,’ the DoH states on its website.
That is the same point raised by Oh Myoung-don, a professor of internal medicine and member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards. Contrary to claims of possible reactivation of the virus, Professor Oh suggests the tests conducted in South Korea likely picked up lingering viral genetic material.
‘Even after the virus is dead, the nucleic acid [RNA] fragments still remain in the cells,’ he said.
Associate Professor Ian Mackay, a virologist at the University of Queensland Child Health Research Centre, told newsGP that until some scientific method is applied to these cases, they are merely ‘anecdotes about reinfection [with] no solid analyses to guide us’.
Even the Australian College of General Practitioners realizes that these PCR tests conflate active virus strains, and dead bits of genetic material. This is from April 15, 2020, some 4 months ago.
5. Australian Department Of Health
Can reinfection occur?
There have been reports of apparent re-infection in a small number of cases. However, most of these describe patients having tested positive within 7-14 days after apparent recovery. Immunological studies indicate that patients recovering from COVID-19 mount a strong antibody response. It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and noninfective RNA. Australian guidelines currently require patients who have had COVID-19 to test negative on two tests 24 hours apart before being released from isolation.
According to the Australian Health Department, positive tests are likely due to viral excretion. And the PCR tests cannot distinguish between that and live viruses. In spite of that, Australia has some of the most draconian measures on the planet.
6. No Cure, Yet Aussies Have Recovered
There is no cure, yet some 80% have already recovered, and that is even with the Government screwing with the numbers.
So what exactly is in these vaccines? Will it euthanize people? Sterilize people? Paralyze them? There is definitely something nefarious at play here, and we need answers.
Detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus
Two types of tests that detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus include – nucleic acid tests that detect the virus’s genetic material and antigen tests that detect specific viral proteins.
Nucleic acid tests
These tests detect the presence of the genetic material, called nucleic acids, of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. Such tests are good at detecting the virus early in the infection and can sometimes even detect the virus in a person before they become unwell. The nucleic acid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test is currently considered the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19.
Nucleic acid tests are complicated to do and usually need specialist scientists to run the tests in a laboratory to get an accurate result. The laboratory scientists can sometimes run these tests on automated machines that can do many tests at once. This means that you can test lots of people quickly.
There are now some SARS-CoV-2 nucleic tests available that can be used outside of a laboratory by trained people. Most of these systems give results quickly but cannot do many tests at once.
In March, Australia said that the PCR tests were unable to differentiate between live or infectious diseases, and “dead” genetic material. Now, in August, it is considered the gold standard of testing. Quite the change.
COVID-19 testing in Australia – information for health professionals
26 August 2020
Tests for COVID-19 aim to detect the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, or an immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear.
The indications for conducting a COVID-19 test have changed through the course of the pandemic. See the current suspect case definition and the testing criteria on the Department of Health website.
As of August 26, 2020, the Australian Government still doesn’t seem to know. Way to send mixed signals on all of this.
Human trafficking, smuggling, and child exploitation are directly connected to the open borders policies that Western Governments have supported for years.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
Check the link for more information on the TSCE series. Also, more information on Canada’s borders is available here, here, here, here, and here. Open borders, sanctuary cities, and human smuggling/trafficking are directly linked. The first 2 help enable the other 2.
To make this clear: so-called “conservatives” are fully complicit in efforts to erase the Canadian border, and to allow people to come en masse. While they SAY a lot of the right things, their actions speak very differently. Conservatives cannot be trusted on issues such as border security or immigration.
4. Entry/Exit System Finally Implemented
Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.
.
Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.
.
Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.
Simply put, travel to countries other than the U.S. are not logged by the Canada Border Services Agency. That site has been altered, and now contains the following information.
Effective June 25, 2020, the CBSA requires air carriers to submit manifests, including those carriers that previously tested and were certified for the Air Exit Program prior to 2020. To begin onboarding, the CBSA encourages all air carriers to contact us as soon as possible.
In the previous system, there was a major loophole in the exit system. Exits were only tracked of people going to the United States (by air, sea, or land crossings). Since June 25, however, all air travel out of the country is logged by the CBSA, closing a very large loophole.
This is good news to see this implemented. However, CBSA confirmed that they don’t actually do anything with the information unless they are looking for specific people.
Interestingly, it is the Trudeau Government that implemented this change. The previous Harper Government was in power for 10 years but chose not to do anything about it. Sure, it took 4 years to come into effect.
2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.
6. (Foreign) NGOs Trying To Open Borders
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
By its own admission, the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) partners with more than 900 NGOs and civil society groups.
7. (Foreign) NGOs Wage Lawfare In Court
This was discussed in other articles, but there have been at least 3 major attempts in Federal Court to strike down the concept of a “safe country”, and make it easier for people identifying as refugees to come to Canada. See this page for a summary. Groups like Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches are not entirely Canadian, despite what names they may go by.
8. Abolishing The “Safe Country” Concept
On May 17, 2019, Canada removed the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) practice. That meant some 42 countries — mostly in Europe — which were considered safe countries were not anymore. The only remaining one was the United States, as covered by the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
9. UNHCR Was Always A Party To S3CA
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Something few people know is that the UNHCR is actually a party to the Safe 3rd Country Agreement. It is not just an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but includes the UN in a consulting role.
10. Federal Court Erasing S3CA Altogether
Thanks to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada, the Safe Third Country Agreement has been struck down entirely. This means that anyone “identifying” as a refugee can now come to Canada from the United States.
Canada does have the option to appeal, and this ruling gives 6 months to draft new legislation. However, with this government, it seems unlikely either will happen.
11. Opening The Floodgates LEGALLY
No, bringing people into Canada in large numbers doesn’t have to be in a sneaky way. Keep in mind, all parties support genocidal levels of replacement migration, and support various globalist initiatives. Conservatives are just as bad, however many people are duped into thinking otherwise.
12. Erasing Borders: CANZUK/UN GMC
(Andrew Scheer finally speaks on the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact. He feigns being indignant, and pretends that borders are something conservatives actually care about. He would come across as believable, if he showed any consistency.)
Conservatives offer nothing except the illusion of opposing. In this example: Andrew Scheer claims to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact (after initially remaining silent). However, CANZUK — an open borders treaty that can be expanded — is official party policy. Some real mental gymnastics are at play here. Furthermore, Erin O’Toole explicitly states at 2:00 in the CANZUK video that he wants to expand CANZUK to other countries.
There is bipartisan support for open borders. But, do politicians at least enact measures to ensure that people, especially children, are not subject to exploitation? Not exactly.
13. Reluctance For DNA Testing: Child/Parent
When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship (where it has been claimed) or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.
Canada only does DNA testing of alleged family members when it cannot establish otherwise that there is a relationship. This has been public for years now, but is still rare. Considering the amount of fraud that has been documented elsewhere, logic dictates that this should be the norm, in order to protect children from being trafficked. Even the UNHCR frowns on the practice of DNA testing, calling on it to be a last resort. The UNCHR also advises not to deny applications simply because of the DNA may not match. See this post for more background information.
14. Weakening Child Sex-Crime Penalties
Because of Bill C-75, criminal prosecutors now have discretion to try the following offences summarily (lesser) as opposed to mandatory indictment (more severe). Check out the list:
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex (reduced)
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime
One of Trudeau’s big bills (Bill C-75) in his first term was to reduce the criminal penalties for many sex crimes against children, and for terrorism offences.
15. Lowering The Age Of Consent For Anal
One of Trudeau’s earlier pieces of legislation was Bill C-32. However, the contents were eventually shoved into Bill C-75. This would have reduced the age of consent for anal sex form 18 to 16. If Trudeau was interested in “equality”, perhaps a better solution all around would be raising the overall age to 18.
16. Controlled Opposition “Tough On Crime”
Remember Stephen Harper, who was supposedly “tough on crime”? His idea of being hard on child sex offenders was raising the minimum sentence (for indictable offences), from 3 months to 1 year. That’s still pretty lenient, at least in most people’s eyes.
17. Courts Strike Mandatory Minimum Sentences
If it isn’t politically helpful to reduce the penalties, there is another option: have judges strike down existing penalties as “cruel and unusual”. Have a judge find some reasoning to make it work.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of this in action.
(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.
(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.
Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.
The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.
19. Child Exploitation As “Multiculturalism”
Along with racial and cultural differences, multiculturalism brings other serious problems. One of them is having to accept sketchy practices like child marriages, and grooming gangs as “being tolerant”. When there are no standards, then anything goes.
20. These Things Are Connected
There is a relationship between border security and trafficking or exploitation of people. The open borders policies of Western nations have the dual effect of allowing anyone to cross international lines, and of bringing incompatible ideologies with them. These are not random events, but a coordinated effort to overrun and replace our nations. This is a bipartisan effort — and no one is blameless in politics.
To borrow the famous quote: tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
In 2013, brothers Doug Ford and Rob Ford voted to officially make Toronto a sanctuary city. This allows people in the city, (but without a legal right to be in Canada), to continue to access social services. It also makes deportations harder to implement, and furthers balkanization of Toronto. However, there is another consequence of doing this: making human trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation easier.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. Also, take a look at the Border Security topic for some extra background, and the NGOs who are supporting open borders.
City Council Decision
City Council on February 20 and 21, 2013, adopted the following:
.
1. City Council re-affirm its commitment to ensuring access to services without fear to immigrants without full status or without full status documents.
2. City Council request the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to conduct an internal review, with community consultation, of City Divisions, Agencies and Corporations, and to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee in the 3rd quarter of 2013 on the following:
.
a. a review of opportunities to improve access without fear;
.
b. opportunities for City-funded agencies to improve access without fear;
.
c. providing training for front line staff and managers to ensure that undocumented residents can access services without fear; and
.
d. a complaints protocol and a public education strategy to inform Torontonians of the City’s policy.
3. City Council request the City Manager and the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on current Federal and Provincial arrangements to deliver immigration and settlement programs in Ontario, and options for strengthening intergovernmental collaboration and partnerships with the City of Toronto.
4. City Council request the Federal government to establish a regularization program for undocumented residents, and that a letter be sent to the Government and Opposition parties to this end.
5. City Council request the Federal government to increase Provincial Nominee Program levels so that the Province can bring in workers with specific skills who have left Canada as undocumented workers with Canadian children, and that they be given priority processing by Canadian Citizenship and Immigration.
6. City Council request the Provincial government to review its policies for Provincially-funded services for undocumented residents with a view to ensuring access to health care, emergency services, community housing and supports for such residents within a social determinants of the health framework.
Here is what the final resolution actually says. Despite all attempts to make it sound compassionate and humanitarian in nature, this really is an “amnesty for illegals” piece oflegislation.
#1 is a commitment to fund services for illegal aliens.
#2(c) is to train workers that illegals have access to services.
#2(d) is to convince the public that this is somehow okay.
#4 is asking amnesty for illegal aliens.
#5 is asking the Federal Government to give priority to illegal aliens with anchor baby children in the citizenship line.
#6 is asking the Province of Ontario to review its current decision to NOT directly fund services for illegal aliens.
4. Fords Support Amnesty For Illegal Aliens
One has to marvel at the mental gymnastics the Ford Brothers engage in. They vote FOR creating a sanctuary city, which allows illegal aliens to receive free city benefits. They vote FOR illegals with anchor baby children going to the front of the line in a pathway to citizenship. However, they also vote to REMOVE illegals from Toronto, and push for legal immigration.
How does this work? Give illegals access to public services, then deport them, then bring them back to get expedited for a pathway to citizenship?
Possibly the vote on the amendment to deport illegals was just an attempt to pander to constituents who hadn’t read the entire legislation.
We will work with professional associations and the federal government to streamline the process for foreign credential recognition so that highly-educated immigrants can find meaningful employment in their areas of expertise.
And we’ll take steps to make sure that rights and dignity are respected by calling on the federal government to stop using provincial jails to detain immigrants.
We will declare Ontario a Sanctuary Province.
In the 2018 Ontario election campaign, NDP leader Andrea Horwath took a lot of criticism for a proposal (see page 11) to make Ontario a sanctuary province. Much of that came from the “Conservative” party of Doug Ford. In reality though, Horwath was just proposing to expand what Ford was on record as having voting for.
Amnesty or sanctuary cities/provinces are horrible ideas, certainly. But Doug Ford really has no moral high ground to stand on here.
6. Businesses Support Cheap Labour Pool
This pilot program was covered previously on this site. While it specifies 500 workers and their families (some 2,000 to 3,000 people total), don’t be naive and think that this will be a one time deal. Why do many businesses support the inflow of labour? Because it helps to drive wages down.
Now, certainly the cheap labour and strain on social services are large problems in a sanctuary city. However, there is something much darker, and more evil to worry about.
7. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link
2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”
Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.
8. Toronto’s Human Trafficking Problem
The City of Toronto condemns the horrific crime of human trafficking and is committed to working collaboratively to support survivors of human trafficking and eradicate human trafficking in Toronto.
Over the last decade, concern regarding human trafficking in Canada has grown. In Toronto, human trafficking for the purposes of forced sexual labour has received significant attention.
Human trafficking is a complex issue for which there is limited data that can be relied upon to fully describe and understand the problem. From the limited data that is available, it is clear that human trafficking occurs throughout Toronto.
The City’s work related to human trafficking falls into the four main categories of the anti-human trafficking lens, where the person being trafficked, or at risk of being trafficked, is put at the centre, and their safety, well-being and human rights are prioritized:
.
(1) identifying people being or at-risk of being trafficked
(2) supporting survivors of human trafficking
(3) preventing human trafficking
(4) avoiding increasing the vulnerability of people engaged in consensual sex work.
On June 18, 2019, Council adopted the report (EC5.4) that outlines a number of actions that the City proposes to take, in collaboration with other agencies, corporations and divisions to support survivors of human trafficking.
Certainly, human trafficking is awful. There is no excuse whatsoever for forcing or coercing someone, or for exploitation of people. This is even more true when minors are involved.
But what does any of this have to do with open borders, or with Toronto becoming a sanctuary city? Take a look at some of Toronto’s “measures to combat” trafficking, and it becomes more clear.
Service Access
The City has many services that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. While some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status, the City’s Access to City Services for Undocumented Torontonians (Access T.O.) ensures access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or full status documents.
Yes, letting people into the country illegally, or establishing sanctuary cities are harmless, critics say. However, the City of Toronto is fully aware that trafficking happens to people who aren’t in the country legally. Whether entry comes from illegally entering, or overstaying a legal entry, the result is much the same. People are here — unknown to the Government — who are being exploited.
Did Doug and Rob Ford vote to support human trafficking? No they didn’t. However, by supporting Toronto becoming a “sanctuary city”, they helped ensure that illegals will continue to flood into Toronto, and that identifying people will become that much harder.
(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.
(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.
Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.
The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.
The Fords may not have explicitly voted for this, but it is the consequence. People involved in human trafficking — both as victims and perpetrators — are now able to live in a major city, and are completely unknown to authorities.
10. Toronto Pays Ethnic Anti-Trafficking NGOs
Not too many convictions since Toronto Police Services began keeping track in 2014. And considering recent calls to defund the police, how will this get any better?
(Appendix F) In September 2017, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario, announced a total of approximately $18.6 million to 44 partners and agencies across the province for projects that aim to prevent human trafficking and support survivors. Grants for Toronto-based partners were allocated the total amount of $3.1 million and the funded period started in 2017.
FCJ Refugee Centre: Identification, intervention and prevention of labour trafficking and exploitation among migrant workers ($369,289)
South Asian Legal Clinic Ontario: Legal education for victims and survivors of human trafficking and front-line service providers in the areas of criminal law, immigration law and employment law, including e-learning tools that can be accessed throughout Ontario ($156,768)
Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network): Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network is managing the Migrant Sex Workers Outreach and Education Project which provides outreach specifically to migrant sex workers across Toronto. Peer workers provide monthly harm reduction workshops at informal gatherings to reduce isolation and increase harm reduction knowledge amongst migrant sex workers. ($199,311)
Native Family Child and Youth Services Toronto: Comprehensive culture-based outreach, prevention, healing, and treatment services for Indigenous survivor ($406,325)
Native Women’s Resource Centre Toronto Facilitation of regional working groups to provide education, evidence-based interventions, holistic individualized supports and wraparound resources that empower survivors. This will include 12 community engagements ($678,641)
Human trafficking seems to be such a widespread problem that groups are choosing to help victims along ethnic lines. Again, how does making Toronto a sanctuary city cause it to be any safer?
11. Sanctuary Cities Shield Predators
Although there is more data available in the United States on illegals being released, the same issue exists in Canada. Predators in Canada are already released after short sentences. If sanctuary cities exist, it becomes easier to disappear. Either the person can hide in such a city, or, if deported, can come back and hide fairly easily.
Think of it from this perspective: if city staff doesn’t care whether its residents are there legally, how seriously will it take the plight of people being exploited?
Distinctions between consensual sex work and human trafficking
A broad range of stakeholders are concerned about the conflation of consensual sex work and human trafficking. While consensual sex work may include some elements of exploitation, as many forms of work do, it is distinct from human trafficking in that the “worker” is not coerced. There is general agreement that anti-human trafficking measures should focus on people who are being coerced and controlled.
When consensual sex work is conflated with human trafficking, there is often increased surveillance of sex work and efforts to “rescue” sex workers. Avoiding conflating consensual sex work and human trafficking is important so that sex workers are not further surveilled, stigmatized, criminalized1, and forced underground, resulting in greater marginalization and isolation. The more socially and physically isolated sex workers are, the more vulnerable they are to violence and exploitation. Relatedly, providing access to services and resources that promote harm reduction to people engaged in consensual sex work both supports sex workers’ well-being and provides opportunities for sex workers to build relationships that may be useful if they choose to leave the sex industry and/or if they experience violence or exploitation.
The Toronto Anti-Trafficking Action Report tries to have it both ways. It repeatedly insists that consensual sex workers are not being exploited. Yet it also says that sex workers can be (and are) exploited to a degree. It seems almost schizophrenic in its reasoning.
13. John Tory Supports Sanctuary Toronto
Toronto Mayor, and former Ontario Conservative Party leader, John Tory, also supports Toronto being a sanctuary city. To think this man almost became Ontario Premier in 2007. Then again, his successors are no better.
Unfortunately, getting a real answer to this question is difficult, as there is little data available. However, the BC Government has some worthwhile information of a general nature. The RCMP does provide some numbers, and international trafficking is addressed.
15. Trudeau Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes
Worth mentioning is this and this earlier articles, the Trudeau Government actually reduced the penalties for child sex crimes. While everyone was outraged about the diluted sentences for terrorism, the break that it gave to pedophiles seemed to slip by. Also, the various parties work together to prevent real border security from taking place.
16. Sanctuary Cities Conceal Problems
While touted as a humanitarian gesture, sanctuary cities can have the exact opposite effect. Making it easier to conceal people illegally in the country ensures they are more likely to be exploited. After all, few know where they are, and officially they don’t exist.
It’s expected that liberal globalists will support sanctuary cities. The real disappointment, however, is so-called “conservatives” who go along with it anyway.
Crestview Strategy lobbyist (and former assistant to the now Attorney General David Lametti), Zakery Blais, renewed his official registration as a lobbyist on behalf of the Gates funded GAVI. Effective August 1st. To clarify, Lametti was only a Parliamentary Secretary when Blais worked for him, but that hardly excuses the behaviour.
1. Zakery Blais Worked For David Lametti
Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.
His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.
Zakery holds an Honours BSocSc in Political Science from the University of Ottawa, and a Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Queen’s University
Although the Member of Parliament is not identified in Blais’ Crestview profile, looking at his LinkedIn, we can tell it is David Lametti. Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary at the time, but is now the sitting Attorney General of Canada.
Bit of a side note: Blais’ profile also has him spending almost a year working for the Liberal Research Bureau.
2. Lack Of Transparency In Public Office Holding
Blais claims to have never been a public office holder. While true in a technical sense, it is very misleading. Blais WORKED FOR Lametti, who was a public officer holder, and now sits as the Attorney General of Canada. But you wouldn’t get that information from looking at the Lobbying Commissioner’s website.
Crestview lobbies on behalf of GAVI, trying to get government grants to vaccinate the planet. So far, Ottawa has shelled out some $800 million. And it needs to be emphasized, there is no arms-length relationship here at all.
Most readers will know this, but for those who don’t: GAVI is the Global Vaccine Alliance, which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
3. Crestview’s M-132 Conflict Of Interest
M-132 was introduced in November 2017 by Liberal MP Raj Saini. It was covered here and here. One might wonder why GAVI is interested in lobbying on a motion to finance drugs and drug research for Canada and the entire world.
4. CS Co-Founded By Katie Telford’s Husband
Liberal strategist and former pundit Rob Silver said Monday he has left the government relations firm he helped create, citing his wife’s position as Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff.
“Effective Dec. 31, 2015 I am no longer a shareholder or employee of Crestview Strategy,” Silver said in an email Monday afternoon.
Silver was a partner in the Toronto- and Ottawa-based public affairs agency that, among other things, lobbies the federal government on behalf of clients.
Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff, helped start up Crestview Strategy, the lobbying firm that GAVI hired to push the vaccine agenda.
5. Rob Silver’s New Conflict Of Interest
OTTAWA – The Trudeau government is paying up to $84 million to a company that employs Chief of Staff Katie Telford’s husband as a senior executive to administer its COVID-19 emergency commercial rent assistance program for small businesses.
Due to the ties between Telford and her husband, Robert Silver, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) assures that their chief of staff has recused herself from any decisions that may involve MCAP, Silver’s employer.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Silver became Senior Vice-President, Strategy, Policy, Risk at MCAP in January 2020. MCAP bills itself as one of Canada’s largest private mortgage companies, with over 300,000 customers and $105 billion in assets under management.
According to LinkedIn, this is Silver’s first job in the private sector since leaving Crestview — the government relations firm he helped create — following the October 2015 elections. At the time, he cited his wife’s job as new chief of staff to the prime minister as the reason for his departure.
Silver may have left Crestview Strategy, but it appears his old ways haven’t changed. Yet another conflict of interest that should never have happened.
This was addressed in Part 5, but Crestview Strategy has many political connections, and they extend across party lines. In some sense, it really doesn’t matter who is actually in power. Crestview has connections. And Zakery Blais is still at it.
If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.
2. Text Of Nuremberg Code
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?
It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.
Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.
What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.
As always, there is more to the story than most think. For other listings in the coronavirus hoax, check out this series. Know what is really going on v.s. what the media is telling you. Rest assured, you aren’t getting the whole story from mainstream news sources.
2. Context For This Piece
Governments across the Western world have been very perplexing choices in deciding what stays open, and what gets closed during this so-called pandemic. The British Columbia Government, for example, promotes and allows all sorts of degeneracy, but claims it can be done safely. In the meantime, gatherings, including religious gatherings are limited to 50 people. Elsewhere, it is even less.
But what if these weren’t just random, nonsensical choices? What if there really was an agenda, and it was to wage war on the idea of religious institutions. Keep in mind, after the “second wave” hits, (as we are told is coming), how do we know there won’t be more closures?
Is it hyperbolic to compare this to deliberate killings and violence towards a group? Perhaps, but keep in mind, that genocide usually starts off in increments.
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.
Allow depraved and degenerate acts to continue, while mandating that religious institutions to only operate in a limited and controlled fashion is a hypocritical double standard. It’s not as if Western Governments are treating “everyone” in the same manner. Instead, there is picking and choosing as to which groups are allowed to operate as normal.
Let’s not get the idea that this is almost over. Governments are hyping up the “second wave” in an act of predictive programming, to get people used to future restrictions.
Sure, we’re not killing people for their religious affiliations — at least for now. At the moment it is reduced to limiting, (or banning outright), how they may practice and worship.
Fundamental freedoms – section 2
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Freedom of religion is spelled out quite clearly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, gatherings are limited, while governments bend over backwards (pardon the pun) to allow and facilitate all kinds of degeneracy and risky behaviour.
However, there is probably a good reason for this double standard. Certainly, our officials have a solid basis for acting the ways that they do. Right?
5. BC Government Admits No Science Involved
BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind the decision to limit gatherings — including religious gatherings — to just 50 people. See 1:00 in the video. Far from being a breath of transparency, Henry admits (and justifies) being entirely arbitrary about how rules are made.
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. STEVE
SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[July 24, 2020]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief. This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), recently declined intervene in appeal from Nevada. The Applicants challenged the double standard of allowing gambling to open up (almost regardless of size), but religious institutions were limited. Justice Gorsuch’s dissent was short but sweet.
One has to wonder about Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, who cast the deciding vote. One also has to wonder about his recent black eye and potential deep state ties.
7. A Formal Complaint To The Hague?
Again, it may be viewed as hyperbolic to compare restrictions on religious gatherings to outright mass murder. However, it is clear that governments do target this group, while giving much more risky and immoral behaviour a pass.
In fairness, however, the UN would likely do little, if anything. The World Health Organization seems to back this hoax fully.
This needs to be fought back against, one way or another.
