Category: Media

Posted on

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

Posted on

A Guide For Spotting Controlled Opposition Among “Lockdown Critics” (My Take)

There are a few ways the press can do this. “Journalists” can quite openly support government restrictions, and take their subsidies. They can provide the faintest opposition to it. They cover stories while leaving out important details. None of this helps the public.

This problem exists in political spheres as well. Politicians can generally be lumped into 1 of 2 categories:

[1] Pro-Vaccine, Pro-Lockdown/Restriction
[2] Pro-Vaccine, Anti-Lockdown/Restriction

See how this works? Even the lockdown resisters support poisoning the public with God knows what.

DISCLAIMER: People who are unaware of certain things should not be lumped into this. If a person is genuinely oblivious, then they should be given the chance to get informed. The following distinction typically applies to politicians, media and other public figures.

There are the points that it’s acceptable to oppose, and to publicly come out against. Typically, they will only oppose the coercion element, but support the overall plan. Granted, they are still ahead of the subsidized media, and most politicians

ACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Vaccine passports should be opposed
-Vaccines must be voluntary
-Forced PCR testing must be prevented
-Modelling projections don’t justify what’s happening
-Business closures are unjustified
-Media isn’t reporting what’s really happening
-Travel bans/restrictions are unjustified
-Mask mandates accomplish little

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Companies like Pfizer and their sketchy history
-The vaccines are experimental
-The vaccines have “interim authorization” not approval
-The vaccines have another 1 to 2 years of testing
-There are no longitudinal studies on the effects of such vaccines
-Governments handing out money to “increase vaccine confidence”
-Manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits or legal action
-PCR testing is completely fraudulent when used in this way
-Modelling is a bogus pseudo-science
-This “virus” has never been isolated, possibly doesn’t exist
-Virus patents owned by Gates, Rothschild
-Media in Canada is being heavily subsidized
-Media in Canada is paid to not report the full truth
-“Fact Checker” groups in Canada are heavily subsidized
-Masks cause long term health problems, and this is done deliberately
-Biological tracking has been in the works for a long time
-Larger social agenda at play here, Great Reset
-People like Gates, Bell, Rockefeller are eugenicists
-These scenarios have been going on for years (Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, Theresa Tam’s film, Clade X, Event 201….)
-Politicians are lobbied for their stance. (See below)

It gets a bit trickier when a public figure will wade a little bit into the unacceptable topics. That said, this should distinguish between the people pretty accurately.

Of course, there is another type to watch out for. There are people who tell the truth, but conduct themselves in such a way as to deliberately appear crazy. This is extremely off putting to the normies.

Jordan Peterson became famous for rejecting authoritarianism and compelled speech for gender pronouns. That said, he asks people to “suspend judgement another 6 months”, and supports mass vaccinating the public.

Maxime Bernier made a name for himself opposing lockdown measures. However, he still supports vaccinating Canadians, and claims to have recommended to his own father to get it. To be fair, Derek Sloan may very well be controlled as well, given his fairly tame objections.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis became a bit of a folk hero in Canada for his recent stances, particularly coming out against vaccine passports. That said, he still supports mass vaccinating his people his an experimental, unapproved concoction, with the manufacturers indemnified. See this earlier piece.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, much like DeSantis made headlines by banning vaccine passports. That being said, he still supports injecting people in his own state, on a major scale.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is held in high regard for not imposing any lockdown measures in her state. That said, she is completely on board with the vaccination agenda.

Do you get it now? All of these supposed “freedom fighters” still want to inject everyone with the experimental poison. These people are not on our side.

One would think that this admission from John Bell (AstraZeneca Chief) would lead to immediate demands to pull the drug, and open criminal investigations. Strangely, it hasn’t.

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(3) Postmedia Subsidies/Connections, Lack Of Real Journalism
(4) Nordstar; Torstar; Metroland Media; Subsidies & Monopoly
(5) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(6) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(7) Tri-City News, LMP Pulls Bonnie Henry Article; Pandemic Bucks
(8) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(9) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(10) PHAC Supporting #ScienceUpFirst Counter Intel Effort
(11) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(12) Media, Banks, Credit Unions Getting CEWS
(13) John Tory’s Sister Board Member At Bell; CEWS; Subsidies
(14) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(15) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx

Posted on

PHAC Supporting “Science Up First”, Online Counter-Misinformation Group

Hey there. Ever get the feeling that the Government may be behind a lot of the propaganda that is going on? Well, there may be something to that. Meet the group Science Up First.

  1. Blast the media with our own narrative
  2. Eliminate information that contradicts our narrative

WHY #SCIENCEUPFIRST?
The goal of #ScienceUpFirst is to get people to consider the available science first before sharing content online.
.
We understand that in the age of social media there is a growing need for science-informed content. We hope to inspire people to amplify the distribution of expert-written and reviewed content and to help stop the spread of COVID-19 related misinformation throughout the internet.
.
#ScienceUpFirst is both good practice and a call to action!
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a marked rise in misinformation and conspiracy theories related to Health information and governments’ response to the outbreak. The WHO has classified this as a global infodemic. According to experts conspiracy, misinformation and conspiracy theories are rapidly spreading on social media and represent a threat to the Health and Safety of Canadians.
.
As a result, there is an identified need for national cooperation and mobilization of independent scientists, researchers, information experts, health care providers and science communicators to come together to collaboratively create and disseminate quality health-related information available to the public.

In other words, we don’t need people fact checking and reviewing our work. We need people to uncritically amplify it on their social media. Now, who runs the show?

STEERING COMMITTEE

  • Carrie Bourassa: Professor in the Department of Community Health & Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon and the Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health
  • Marie-Eve Carignan: Associate Professor at the Department of Communication of the University of Sherbrooke and Head of Media Division, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism (UNESCO-PREV Chair)
  • Timothy Caulfield: Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Univ. Alberta
  • Imogen Coe: Professor, Chemistry & Biology, Faculty of Science; Dimensions Chair Member, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University & St. Michael’s Hospital; President, Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences 2020-2022
  • Amber Mac (MacArthur): President, AmberMac Media Inc.
  • Marianne Mader : Executive Director, Canadian Association of Science Centers
  • Anthony Morgan: Founder, Science Everywhere; Science Communicator
  • Tara Moriarty: Associate Professor, University of Toronto (Infectious Disease research); Co-lead: COVID-19 Resources Canada; Executive team member: CanCOVID; Diagnostics Pillar lead, Canadian Lyme Disease Research Network
  • David M. Patrick: Director of Research and Medical Epidemiology Lead for AMR, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control; Professor, UBC School of Population and Public Health
  • Krishana Sankar: Biological Scientist; COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead and Volunteer Programs Director
  • Joe Schwarcz: Director, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Marva Sweeney-Nixon: Professor and Chair, Department of Biology; Faculty of Science, University of Prince Edward Island
  • Fatima Tokhmafshan: Geneticist, Bioethicist, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead, Canadian Science Policy Centre Social Media Chair
  • Samantha Yammine: Director, Science Sam Media

#ScienceUpFirst Coalition

  • Lisa Barrett: Assistant professor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Department of Pathology, Dalhousie University
  • Chantal Barriault: Director, Science Communication Graduate Program, School of the Environment, Laurentian University
  • Tyler Black: Clinical Assistant Professor, University of BC
  • Isaac Bogoch: Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Infectious disease specialist; Clinician Investigator, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute
  • Colette Brin: Professor at Université Laval’s Département d’information et de communication and the Director of the Centre d’études sur les médias
  • Tania Bubela: Professor and Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University
  • Tracy Calogheros: CEO, Exploration Place Museum & Science Centre, BC
  • Christine Chambers: Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Children’s Pain and Killam Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology & Neuroscience; Scientific Director, CIHR’s Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
  • Naheed Dosani: Palliative Care Physician & Health Justice Activist
  • Kathryn Hill: Executive Director, MediaSmarts
  • Jonathan Jarry: Science Communicator, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Eoghan Moriarty: Solutions Architect, LabCrunch
  • Alex Munter: CEO, CHEO
  • Ubaka Ogbogu: Assistant Professor, Faculties of Law and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Law Centre, University of Alberta
  • Jonathan N. Stea: Clinical Psychologist, Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Calgary
  • Heidi Tworek: Associate Prof, Public Policy & History, UBC

Interesting, how the bulk of these people are university professors. Is their funding in any way tied to the efforts they make? Now, Science Up First does provide, in broad strokes, the method of how they go about doing this:

(1) Provide science from trusted and credible sources, particularly those that note the scientific consensus on the relevant topic.
(2) Highlight rhetorical and logic gaps used to push misinformation (e.g., relying on anecdotes & testimonials, misrepresenting risk).
(3) Use (and create) clear and shareable content that is relevant to a range of audiences (meeting people where they are and considering unique concerns, etc.).
(4) Emphasize content that is respectful, inclusive, authentic, accessible, and kind in tone.
(5) Aim for creative and engaging content that highlights the facts.
(6) Emphasize inclusive messaging for a general audience and/or tailored to meet needs of specific communities

Of course, they’ll never directly address serious issues such as vaccine manufacturers being indemnified, or their products receiving “interim authorization” instead of approval. They won’t address the mass censorship on Facebook and Twitter of conflicting information.

That said, if you are willing to uncritically signal boost the (ever changing) narrative, then Science Up First may be an option for you.

For a specific example, the issue of heart problems is discussed on the Twitter account. It’s too big to simply ignore altogether, so the people posting try to let you know how rare it is. Now, some may find it unsettling to post information randomly telling people to ignore such concerns. However, that is the state of “science” these days.

(1) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/
(2) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/who
(3) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/why
(4) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/how#guidelines
(5) https://twitter.com/scienceupfirst
(6) https://twitter.com/ScienceUpFirst/status/1405972418812841991
(7) https://www.instagram.com/scienceupfirst/
(8) https://www.facebook.com/Science-Up-First-104308078247296

Posted on

WHO Advises Not To Vaccinate Children, Then Changes It Secretly

As of 3 June 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy:

  • AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine
  • Johnson and Johnson
  • Moderna
  • Pfizer/BionTech
  • Sinopharm
  • Sinovac

Read our Q&A on the Emergency Use Listing process to find out more about how WHO assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Some national regulators have also assessed other COVID-19 vaccine products for use in their countries.

Take whatever vaccine is made available to you first, even if you have already had COVID-19. It is important to be vaccinated as soon as possible once it’s your turn and not wait. Approved COVID-19 vaccines provide a high degree of protection against getting seriously ill and dying from the disease, although no vaccine is 100% protective.

WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include: hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your care provider if you:

-Have a compromised immune system
-Are pregnant (if you are already breastfeeding, you should continue after vaccination)
-Have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine (or any of the ingredients in the vaccine)
-Are severely frail

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

WHAT SHOULD I DO AND EXPECT AFTER GETTING VACCINATED

Stay at the place where you get vaccinated for at least 15 minutes afterwards, just in case you have an unusual reaction, so health workers can help you.

Check when you should come in for a second dose – if needed. Most of the vaccines available are two-dose vaccines. Check with your care provider whether you need to get a second dose and when you should get it. Second doses help boost the immune response and strengthen immunity.

In most cases, minor side effects are normal. Common side effects after vaccination, which indicate that a person’s body is building protection to COVID-19 infection include:

-Arm soreness
-Mild fever
-Tiredness
-Headaches
-Muscle or joint aches

Contact your care provider if there is redness or tenderness (pain) where you got the shot that increases after 24 hours, or if side effects do not go away after a few days.

If you experience an immediate severe allergic reaction to a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you should not receive additional doses of the vaccine. It’s extremely rare for severe health reactions to be directly caused by vaccines.

Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works. However, you may take paracetamol or other painkillers if you do develop side effects such as pain, fever, headache or muscle aches after vaccination.

Even after you’re vaccinated, keep taking precautions

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.

Continue to take actions to slow and eventually stop the spread of the virus:

-Keep at least 1 metre from others
-Wear a mask, especially in crowded, closed and poorly ventilated settings.
-Clean your hands frequently
-Cover any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow
-When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation, such as by opening a window

Doing it all protects us all.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

Shortly after originally posting, WHO changed its advice. Now, instead of “we shouldn’t vaccinate children”, the article reads “it’s less urgent”. Nice way to slip the narrative.

(1) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
(2) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(3) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(4) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(5) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(6) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(11) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Posted on

Karlyn Borysenko Wants CRT Banned As Anti-White Agenda Is Too Obvious

On June 17, 2021, Karlyn Borysenko released a video, demanding that people stop calling critical race theory (CRT) an anti-white ideology. The entire video is well worth a watch. According to her biography, she is a “organizational psychologist and executive/performance coach.” Clearly, this is a smart person, which makes this claim so striking.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE

This doesn’t appear to be trolling. Borysenko it making the straight faced claim that this is the reality. Her major points are as follows:

  1. Borysenko claims that critical race theory isn’t about race, but about power. She says this is done to ultimate promote a communist utopia
  2. Borysenko claims that CRT makes people racist, despite previously statin that CRT isn’t about race. Some nice mental gymnastics
  3. Borysenko claims that CRT will create an actual white power movement in the United States.

Borysenko says that CRT came from the universities in the 1970s, and the idea is that racism exists everywhere. Consequently, it must be “sussed out”. While there is truth to this, she intentionally leaves out that the West has been continuously framed as a “white power” ideology, built on oppression. It doesn’t target any other group.

Also, the bulk of the people promoting the anti-white narrative aren’t white now, are they?

She repeats her contradictory claims that CRT is both: (a) not about race; and (b) can be used to target people of any race. How can an ideology that has nothing to do with race also be incredibly racist?

She claims that CRT can be directed against any group, including black and hispanic. Strange how there aren’t any claims of Mexican power in academia.

She also claims that an “actual white power movement” will result from pushing of CRT. Of course, she conflates violence with whites realizing that they are deliberately under attack. This attempt to steer the narrative has been done before, and she comes across as a less eloquent version of Jordan Peterson.

This dishonest take on CRT has an obvious interpretation: Borysenko doesn’t object to the anti-white agenda overall, but CRT is too overtly so. Can’t have the whites realizing that they are the targets. It’s a question of tactics here, not beliefs.

She makes the assertion that CRT is used to divide people while keeping a certain group in power. Okay, who’s in power? It probably isn’t whites, considering this is the only group it’s legal to discriminate against.

If Borysenko had simply condemned CRT, or claimed that things were being blown out of proportion, there would have been a lot less to question. However, she denies what is obvious, and claims that people organizing to resist it is an “actual white power movement”.

One has to wonder why she is being promoted as a “thought leader”, when many of the things she says are so obviously false.

Borysenko repeatedly makes strawman arguments. People calling CRT what it is are not trying to start any violent movement, they just want the truth told about this. However, she’s being intellectually dishonest when gaslighting such concerns.

Of course, if you start pointing out (with details) that CRT is anti-white, Borysenko has no problems blocking you. In fact, she seems to enjoy the idea of shutting out dissenting views. Her attitude and actions show that she has no interest in openly discussing what is obvious:

Critical race theory is anti-white, and used to condemn whites.

This isn’t just a one off. Borysenko’s YouTube channel is full of such content. On June 11, she did a stream on Robyn DiAngelo, author of “White Fragility”. DiAngelo isn’t white, but likes to condemn them anyway. Go through Borysenko’s work for more examples.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0EMfjhqzM
(2) http://www.twitter.com/drkarlynb
(3) https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1406618460428378120
(4) http://facebook.com/drkarlynb
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlynborysenko/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcZgVjM9K34
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av2HN7e8n8Q
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYTy6x7-5V8

Posted on

President Of CPC National Council, Robert Batherson, Starts Up Own Lobbying Firm

We come to Robert Batherson, the President of the National Council of the CPC. This is yet another example of the revolving door between politics and lobbying.

First elected to National Council in 2016, Robert Batherson has been an active Conservative for more than 25 years. He served as the president of two Nova Scotia electoral district associations and was a member of the National Policy Committee in 2012-2013. Rob has been as active at the provincial level, serving as president of the PC Party of Nova Scotia from 2009 to 2012 and co-chairing the 2006 PC Party of Nova Scotia Leadership Convention.

As Executive Vice President, Public Relations, for one of the largest communications agencies in Atlantic Canada, Rob provides counsel and support to senior leaders in a wide range of sectors. He is an active community volunteer with extensive board governance experience, having chaired both the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and Neptune Theatre Foundation, where he became one of only eight people in the theatre’s 58-year history to be named honourary director in recognition of his service.

Rob holds a Bachelor of Public Relations degree and certificate of proficiency in French from Mount Saint Vincent University.

After a stint in Federal politics, Batherson got involved with Nova Scotia politics. He then spent over a decade at the PR firm “Colour”, which was essentially lobbying and marketing. He’s now back with the Federal Conservative Party, and is the President of the National Council.

In short, Batherson is one of the people who actually run the party, even if very few outside of that circle know who he is. But here’s where things take an ugly turn:

On May 16, 2021, the MacDonald Notebook reported that Batherson was starting up his own PR firm, Harbourview Public Affairs. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce also shared the announcement.

It’s unclear which clients Batherson will be taking on as the Owner of Habourview Public Affairs. Nonetheless, this seems to be a serious conflict of interest. If the CPC had any integrity, they would strip him of his Party role.

Just a hunch, but it’s likely that pharmaceutical companies will be approaching him, given his new found position as the man behind Erin O’Toole

A Few Names To Keep In Mind
Erin O’Toole: ex-Facebook lobbyist, CPC Leader
Amber Ruddy: CURRENT pharma lobbyist, CPC National Council Secretary
Robert Batherson: CURRENT lobbyist, CPC National Council President
Melissa Lantsman: ex-pharma lobbyist, CPC Candidate for Thornhill

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team/national-council/
(3) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/robert-batherson/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-batherson-he-him-7601a6a3/
(5) https://archive.is/8dm97
(6) https://www.themacdonaldnotebook.ca/2021/05/16/rob-batherson-incorporates-his-own-pr-company-harbourview-public-affairs/
(7) http://business.halifaxchamber.com/members/member/harbourview-public-affairs-179707
(8) https://secure.llscanada.org/site/TR/MWOY/Atlantic?px=1198385&pg=personal&fr_id=1101
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/