Category: Media

Posted on

The Other Provincial Health Acts Written By WHO-IHR

Welcome to the second part of the Provincial Health Acts of Canada. As you will see, elements of the 2005 Quarantine Act are written into them.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf
CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on Provincial Health Acts

(QC) http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/S-2.2
(NB) http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc/cs/P-22.4//20210220
(NS) https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/health%20protection.pdf
(NL) https://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/statutes/p37-3.htm
(PEI) Prince Edward Island Public Health Act
(YK) https://legislation.yukon.ca/acts/puhesa.pdf

3. Quebec Public Health Act

5. Public health actions must be directed at protecting, maintaining or enhancing the health status and well-being of the general population and shall not focus on individuals except insofar as such actions are taken for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals.
.
6. This Act is binding on the Government, on government departments and on bodies that are mandataries of the State.

CHAPTER IX
COMPULSORY TREATMENT AND PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES FOR CERTAIN CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS
DIVISION I
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS AND COMPULSORY TREATMENT

83. The Minister may, by regulation, draw up a list of the contagious diseases or infections for which any person affected is obligated to submit to the medical treatments required to prevent contagion.
.
The list may include only contagious diseases or infections that are medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population and for which an effective treatment that would put an end to the contagion is available.
2001, c. 60, s. 83.

84. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who observes that a person is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies must take, without delay, the required measures to ensure that the person receives the care required by his or her condition, or direct the person to a health and social services institution able to provide such treatments.
2001, c. 60, s. 84; 2020, c. 6, s. 25.

85. In the case of certain diseases or infections identified in the regulation, any health or social services institution having the necessary resources must admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of those diseases or infections. If the institution does not have the necessary resources, it must direct the person to an institution able to provide the required services.
2001, c. 60, s. 85.

86. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who becomes aware that a person who is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies is refusing or neglecting to submit to an examination must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
Such a notice must also be given by any such professional who observes that a person is refusing or neglecting to submit to the required medical treatment or has discontinued a treatment that must be completed to prevent contagion or a recurrence of contagion.
2001, c. 60, s. 86; 2020, c. 6, s. 26.

87. Any public health director who receives a notice under section 86 must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to be examined or to submit to the appropriate treatment, the public health director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to submit to such examination or treatment.
2001, c. 60, s. 87.

88. A judge of the Court of Québec or of the municipal courts of the cities of Montréal, Laval or Québec having jurisdiction in the locality where the person is to be found may, if the judge believes on reasonable grounds that the protection of the health of the population so warrants, order the person to submit to an examination and receive the required medical treatment.
.
In addition, the judge may, if the judge believes on serious grounds that the person will refuse to submit to the examination or to receive the treatment, order that the person be taken to an institution maintained by a health or social services institution for examination and treatment. The provisions of section 108 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
2001, c. 60, s. 88.

DIVISION II
COMPULSORY PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES
.
89. The Minister may, for certain contagious diseases or infections medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population, make a regulation setting out prophylactic measures to be complied with by a person suffering or likely to be suffering from such a disease or infection, as well as by any person having been in contact with that person.
.
Isolation, for a maximum period of 30 days, may form part of the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation of the Minister.
.
The regulation shall prescribe the circumstances and conditions in which specific prophylactic measures are to be complied with to prevent contagion. It may also require certain health or social services institutions to admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of the contagious diseases or infections to which this section applies, as well as any person who has been in contact with that person.
2001, c. 60, s. 89.

90. Any health professional who observes that a person is omitting, neglecting or refusing to comply with the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation made under section 89 must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
The director must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to comply with the necessary prophylactic measures, the director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to do so.
The provisions of section 88 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
The director may also, in the case of an emergency, use the powers conferred by section 103, and sections 108 and 109 apply to such a situation.
2001, c. 60, s. 90.

91. Despite any decision of the Court ordering the isolation of a person, isolation must cease as soon as the attending physician, after consulting the appropriate public health director, issues a certificate to the effect that the risk of contagion no longer exists.

Good old Quebec, where doctors can have you forcibly detained and “treated” based on the vague suspicion that you may have a communicable illness. And of course, the Court can have you locked up and isolated for 30 days at a time based on these suspicions.

4. New Brunswick Public Health Act

Duty to report contacts
2002, c.23, s.10; 2017, c.42, s.35
31A medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse shall, in accordance with the regulations, report the person’s contacts related to a notifiable disease or notifiable event prescribed by regulation to a medical officer of health or person designated by the Minister, if the medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse
(a) provides professional services to a person who has a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or has suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation, or
(b) provided professional services to a deceased person before that person’s death and that person had a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or had suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation.
2002, c.23, s.10; 2007, c.63, s.10; 2011, c.26, s.4; 2017, c.42, s.36

Duty to report refusal or neglect of treatment
2017, c.42, s.37
32A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner shall report to a medical officer of health, in accordance with the regulations, if a person who is under the care and treatment of the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner in respect of a Group I notifiable disease refuses or neglects to continue the treatment in a manner and to a degree satisfactory to the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner, as the case may be.
2017, c.42, s.38

Order respecting notifiable disease
2017, c.42, s.39
33(1)Subject to subsection (2), a medical officer of health by a written order may require a person to take or refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a notifiable disease.
.
33(2)A medical officer of health may make an order under this section if he or she believes on reasonable grounds,
(a) that a notifiable disease exists or may exist in a health region,
(b) that the notifiable disease presents a risk to the health of persons in the health region, and
(c) that the requirements specified in the order are necessary to prevent, decrease or eliminate the risk to health presented by the notifiable disease.

33(3)In an order under this section, a medical officer of health may specify the time or times when or the period or periods of time within which the person to whom the order is directed must comply with the order.

33(4)An order under this section may include, but is not limited to,
(a) requiring any person that the order states has or may have a notifiable disease or is or may be infected with an agent of a notifiable disease to isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons,
.
(b) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner and to deliver to the medical officer of health a report by the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner as to whether or not the person has a notifiable disease or is infected with an agent of a notifiable disease,
(c) requiring the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a disease that is a notifiable disease to place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner without delay, and
.
(d) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

This is the Public Health Act of New Brunswick.

5. Nova Scotia Health Protection Act

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
Powers respecting communicable diseases
32 (1) Where a medical officer is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the public health; and
(c) the requirements specified in the order are necessary in order to decrease or eliminate the risk to the public health presented by the communicable disease, the medical officer may by written order require a person to take or to refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a communicable disease

32 (3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an order
made under this Section may
(a) require the owner or occupier of premises to close the premises or a part of the premises or to restrict access to the premises;
(b) require the displaying of signage on premises to give notice of an order requiring the closing of the premises;
(c) require any person that the order states has been exposed or may have been exposed to a communicable disease to quarantine himself or herself from other persons;
(d) require any person who has a communicable disease or is infected with an agent of a communicable disease to isolate himself or herself from other persons;
(e) require the cleaning or disinfecting, or both, of the premises or any thing specified in the order;
(f) require the destruction of any matter or thing specified in the order;
(g) require the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer and to deliver to the medical officer a report by the physician as to whether or not the person has a communicable disease or is or is not infected with an agent of a communicable disease;
(h) require the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a communicable disease to place himself or herself forthwith under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer;
(i) require the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

Court may ensure compliance
38 (1) Where, upon application by a medical officer, a judge of the provincial court is satisfied that
(a) a person has failed to comply with an order by a medical officer made under to Section 32 that
(i) the person quarantine himself or herself from other persons,
(ii) the person isolate himself or herself from other persons,
(iii) the person submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer,
(iv) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to the
medical officer, or
(v) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection,
the judge may order that the person who has failed to comply with the order of the medical officer
(b) be taken into custody and be admitted to and detained in a quarantine facility named in the order;
(c) be taken into custody and be admitted to, detained and treated in an isolation facility named in the order;
(d) be examined by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer to ascertain whether or not the person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease; or
(e) where found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease, be treated for the disease.
(2) Where an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection (1) is to be carried out by a physician or other health professional, the failure of the person subject to such an order to consent does not constitute an assault or battery against that person by the physician or other health professional should the order be carried out.
(3) A physician or other health professional carrying out an order pursuant to subsection (1) may obtain such assistance from a peace officer or other person as the physician or health professional reasonably believes is necessary.
(4) A judge shall not name an isolation facility or quarantine facility in an order under this Section unless the judge is satisfied that the isolation facility or quarantine facility is able to provide detention, care and treatment as required for the person who is the subject of the order. 2004, c. 4, s. 38.

Authority to apprehend and isolate or quarantine
39 (1) An order made under Section 38 is authority for any person to
(a) locate and apprehend the person who is the subject of the order; and
(b) deliver the person who is the subject of the order to the isolation facility or quarantine facility named in the order or to a physician for examination.
(2) An order made under Section 38 may be directed to a police force that has jurisdiction in the area where the person who is the subject of the order may be located, and the police force shall do all things reasonably able to be done to locate, apprehend and deliver the person to an isolation or quarantine facility in the jurisdiction where the person was apprehended or to an isolation or quarantine facility specified in the order.
(3) A person who apprehends a person who is the subject of an order pursuant to subsection (2) shall promptly
(a) inform the person of the reasons for the apprehension and of the person’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay; and
(b) tell the person where the person is being taken.
(4) An order made under clause 38(1)(c) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the isolation facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person and to treat the person for the communicable disease in accordance with generally accepted medical practice for a period of not more than four months from and including the day that the order was issued.
(5) An order made under clause 38(1)(b) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the quarantine facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person for the incubation period of the communicable disease as determined by the judge.

Nova Scotia, like the others, can force a person to submit to a “medical examination” and do whatever is demanded of the health care provider

6. Newfoundland Public Health

Communicable disease orders
32. (1) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order under this section where he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the health of the population; and
(c) the order is necessary to prevent, eliminate, remedy, or mitigate the risk to the health of the population.
(2) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order in respect of a person who has or may have a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent and the order may do one or more of the following:
(a) require the person to submit to an examination by a specified health care professional at a specified health facility on or before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(b) require the person to isolate himself or herself from other persons, including in a specified health facility;
(c) require the person to conduct himself or herself in a manner that will not expose other persons to infection or to take other precautions to prevent or limit the direct or indirect transmission of the communicable disease or infectious agent to those who are susceptible to the communicable disease or infectious agent or who may spread the communicable disease or infectious agent to others;
(d) prohibit or restrict the person from attending a school, a place of employment or other public premises or from using a public conveyance;
(e) prohibit or restrict the person from engaging in his or her occupation or another specified occupation or type of occupation;
(f) prohibit or restrict the person from leaving or entering a specified premises;
(g) require the person to avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person, animal or thing;
(h) require the person to be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(i) require a person to provide information, records or other documents relevant to the person’s possible infection to a specified person;
(j) require a person to provide samples of the person’s clothing or possessions to a specified person;
(k) require a person to destroy contaminated clothing or possessions;
(l) require a person to provide specimens previously collected from the person to a specified person;
(m) where a regional medical officer of health has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent, require the person to undergo treatment specified in the order or by a specified health care professional, including attending a specified health facility, where there is no other reasonable method available to mitigate the risks of the infection;
(n) require a person to disclose the identity and location of the persons with whom the person may have had contact or whom the person may have exposed to the communicable disease or infectious agent; or
(o) require the person to take, or prohibit the person from taking, an action prescribed in the regulations.

Apprehension orders and treatment orders generally
.
37. (1) A regional medical officer of health or a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order may apply to the Supreme Court to vary, terminate or suspend the order.
(2) Where the application is made by a regional medical officer of health, the variation, termination or suspension of an apprehension order or treatment order may be issued on an application made under subsection (1) without notice and in the absence of the person subject to the order.
(3) Where the application is made by the person subject to the order, the apprehension order or treatment order shall not be varied, terminated or suspended unless the regional medical officer of health has been served with the application made under subsection (1).
(4) An apprehension order and a treatment order shall specify the health facility where the person subject to the order shall be detained, isolated, quarantined, examined and treated.
(5) Notwithstanding another provision of this Act, a judge shall not specify a health facility in an apprehension order or treatment order unless he or she is satisfied that the health facility is able to provide for the detainment, isolation, quarantine, examination or treatment as required in the order.
(6) Where an apprehension order or treatment order has been made, the person in charge of the health facility specified in the order shall ensure that
(a) the person subject to an apprehension order is detained, isolated or quarantined in accordance with the order; and
(b) the person subject to a treatment order is examined and treated in accordance with the order.
(7) The person in charge of the health facility specified in an apprehension order or treatment order shall immediately report to the regional medical officer of health regarding
(a) the results of the examination and treatment of the person subject to the order;
(b) the health status of the person subject to the order; and
(c) any change in the diagnosis or health status of the person subject to the order.
(8) A regional medical officer of health shall monitor the treatment and condition of a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order and shall issue a certificate authorizing the release and discharge of the person immediately where he or she is of the opinion that
(a) the person is no longer infectious with a communicable disease; and
(b) discharging the person would not present a serious risk to the health of the population.
(9) A regional medical officer of health shall file a certificate issued under subsection (8) with the court that issued the apprehension order or treatment order.
(10) Notwithstanding any term or condition of an apprehension order or treatment order, the order is terminated immediately upon the issuance of a certificate under subsection (8) or the termination of the order under subsection 46(5).

Newfoundland & Labrador, like the other Provinces, allows for “medical officers” to order people detained and subjected to treatment, based on suspicions. The text is almost identical to the others.

7. Prince Edward Island Public Health

42. Order of court to detain, examine or treat a person
(1) The Chief Public Health Officer may make an application to the court for an order under this section where a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer in respect of a communicable disease specified in the regulations that
(a) the person isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons;
(b) the person submit to an examination by a medical practitioner;
(c) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner;
(d) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection; and
Public Health Act
.
PART II — PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
Section 42
ct Updated June 12, 2018 Page 25
(e) the person provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health Officer.
Court order
(2) Where the court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer under section 39 or 40, the court may order, with respect to the person named in the order, any or all of the following:
(a) that the person be taken into custody and admitted to and detained in a health facility named in the order;
(b) that the person be examined by a medical practitioner to ascertain whether or not a person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations;
(c) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, be treated for the disease;
(d) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health
Officer.
Ex parte application
(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made ex parte and where so made the court may
make an interim order under subsection (2).

43. Designation of medical practitioner to have responsibility for detained person
The administrator or person in charge of a health facility shall designate a medical practitioner to have responsibility for a person named in an order issued under section 42 who is delivered to a health facility. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.43.
.
44. Medical practitioner to report respecting detained person The medical practitioner responsible for a person named in an order made under section 42 shall report in respect of the treatment and the condition of the person to the Chief Public Health Officer in the manner, at the times and with the information specified by the Chief
Public Health Officer. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.44.
.
45. Extension of period of detention
Where upon application of the Chief Public Health Officer the court is satisfied
(a) that the person continues to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations; and
(b) that the discharge of the person from the health facility would present a significant risk to the health of the public, the court may by order extend the period of detention for not more than three months, and upon further applications by the Chief Public Health Officer, the court may extend the period of detention and treatment for further periods, each of which shall not be for more than three months. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.45.

Prince Edward Island allows Courts to detain people for up to 3 months at a time, and all under the guise of public health. Not that it will ever be abused for political reasons.

8. Medical Tyranny As “Public Health”

The content of these carious Provincial Health Acts overlaps considerably. These unelected medical officers are able to detain people, close businesses, and suspend basic liberties, all under the pretense of public safety.

In any other context, this would be considered dictatorial. But this gets a pass from the mainstream media. Wonder why they don’t address it.

Many Other Periodicals Receiving Government Subsidies
Other Subsidies Propping Up Canadian Media
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Aberdeen Publishing Sells Out, Takes Subsidies
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies

Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Media Subsidies To Combat Online Misinformation

Posted on

Ottawa Using “Pandemic Bucks” To Help Companies Grow And Advertise Their Products

We have already covered media outlets in Canada being heavily subsidized by the Canadian Government — which of course, means the public. It explains the total lack of independent media.

Moving on, it seems that the NRC is heavily involved in propping up other companies, and helping them advertise. This happens even as mandated shutdowns have flattened other companies. Should we be picking winners and losers here?

1. Important Disclaimer With This Piece

It doesn’t appear that the bulk of the grants are directed to help companies push the “pandemic” narrative. That being said, it’s fair to assume that these businesses will be “mindful” of where their money is coming from. So, it’s unlikely that they will be critical of it in any meaningful way. The following comes from an online search of Government handouts on advertising, with some obviously irrelevant ones omitted.

It’s also interesting that the National Research Council of Canada is financing the majority of them. More on that later.

2. Buying Off Entire Canadian Media

Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
Aberdeen Publishin (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting

3. Grants To Companies For R&D, Advertising

COMPANY DATE AMOUNT
2047752 Alberta Inc. Apr. 20, 2020 $53,362
10319287 CANADA INC Aug. 17, 2020 $21,000
Abacus Growth Industry Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $38,250
Akuspike Products Inc. Sep. 21, 2020 $33,750
Apollo Music Store Inc Jul. 7, 2020 $30,750
Baro Apparel Inc. Aug. 1, 2020 $50,100
Bonton and Company Jun. 1, 2020 $96,370
Caldera Distilling May 5, 2020 $33,750
Cambridge Elevating Inc. Aug. 12, 2020 $33,000
Caméléon Média inc. Dec. 23, 2020 $258,903
Casca Designs Inc. Jul. 14, 2020 $22,500
Créations Today is Art Day inc. Oct. 19, 2020 $18,750
CVAC Efficace Inc. May 19, 2020 $19,050
Dirt Squirrel Co. Jul. 10, 2020 $41,250
EatSleepRIDE Mobile Inc. May 11, 2020 $46,000
EQ Advertising Group Ltd. May 1, 2020 $150,000
Fab-Cut Systems Inc Jun. 16, 2020 $30,750
FOM Inc. Sep. 25, 2020 $27,750
Forestry Innovation Investment May 9, 2020 $258,500
Glacier Communications Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $30,000
Gogglesoc Apparel Limited Nov. 18, 2020 $26,250
Harbinger SCR Inc. May 30, 2020 $45,000
Hunch Manifest Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $47,787
Hydrodig Ltd Jun. 9, 2020 $30,000
Indigo Marketing Solutions Ltd. Aug. 4, 2020 $35,000
Jeffrey Ross Jewellery Ltd Oct. 22, 2020 $22,500
Kicking Horse Coffee Co. Jul. 22, 2020 $34,050
Koffee Beauty Inc. May 15, 2020 $34,200
Les Entreprises PNH inc. Nov. 17, 2020 $275,511
M32 Média inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $98,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $80,000
Netgen Corp. Apr. 29, 2020 $26,250
O’Grady Productions Inc. Sep. 16, 2020 $37,500
Pacey Medtech Ltd. Oct. 17, 2020 $26,250
PageFreezer Software Inc. May 3, 2020 $52,500
Park & Fifth Clothing Co. LTD Oct. 20, 2020 $30,000
Probuild Software Inc. Aug. 28, 2020 $18,000
Riaz Sidi Performance Marketing Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $45,000
Rock Solid Productions Inc Sep. 29, 2020 $24,750
Roomview Technologies May 8, 2020 $60,000
Rosgol-Rostech Technologies Inc. Oct. 17, 2020 $24,000
S&Y Househ Advertising Services Inc Nov. 18, 2020 $34,319
Satya Organics Inc Aug. 24, 2020 $30,000
Solutions Nubik Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $27,000
StackAdapt Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $2,468,000
Telecom Engineering Inc Jul. 27, 2020 $21,760
Temple Lifestyle Inc. Jun. 25, 2020 $44,775
Theos Inc. May 9, 2020 $43,950
Trellis Corporation May 4, 2020 $17,000
V. Island Men’s Trauma Counselling Jun. 25, 2020 $177,005
Vertical City Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $250,000
WATTPAD CORP. Jun. 24, 2020 $54,000
Wholly Veggie Inc. Jun. 15, 2020 $37,500
Wizard Games Inc. Jul. 10, 2020 $15,000

This isn’t all of them, but does give a glance into where the Federal Government is spending your money. Or rather, where it’s spending debt for future generations.

4. Why Is National Research Council Funding It?

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) is Canada’s largest federal research and development organization.
.
The NRC partners with Canadian industry to take research impacts from the lab to the marketplace, where people can experience the benefits. This market-driven focus delivers innovation faster, enhances people’s lives and addresses some of the world’s most pressing problems. We are responsive, creative and uniquely placed to partner with Canadian industry, to invest in strategic R&D programming that will address critical issues for our future.

Each year our scientists, engineers and business experts work closely with thousands of Canadian firms, helping them bring new technologies to market. We have the people, expertise, services, licensing opportunities, national facilities and global networks to support Canadian businesses.

In this section, you will find more information about how the NRC is organized and governed, where we are located across Canada, and links to our corporate publications and financial statements.

The majority, (though not all), of these came from NRC.

The NRC’s mandate is to “promote scientific or industrial research”. In short, it’s a public-private partnership to bring to products onto the market. Even as Federal and Provincial Governments crash economies across Canada, public money is used to make new companies competitive. This isn’t simply about money handed out to prop up desperate enterprises. In the meantime, thousands of businesses have gone under, because of the “arbitrary” rules that have been imposed.

The Great Reset is here, and Governments everywhere have their thumbs on the scales.

Posted on

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

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

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

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

2. Quotes From The Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Selective Outrage Over Gharbi Shooting

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

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

Posted on

TSCE #14(E): Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Posted on

Even More Subsidies & “Pandemic Bucks”, For Propping Up Canadian Media

On April 1, 2020, the Canada Media Fund Corporation received a $222,896,077 grant from the Canadian Government. Of this, $88,750,000 was specified as Covid relief. This is just one of the many grants Canadian media companies have been getting in recent years.

SEARCH FOR MEDIA GRANTS

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. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

NAME TIME AMOUNT
***9320-6712 Québec inc. Oct. 8, 2020 $36,026
***Canadian Association Of Broadcasters Apr. 1, 2020 $22,500,000
***Canadian Association Of Community Television Users, Stations Apr. 1, 2020 $1,000,000
***Canadian Association Of Community Television Users, Stations Apr. 1, 2020 $500,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jul. 18, 2006 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Nov. 21, 2007 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 20, 2008 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 8, 2009 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2010 $134,146,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Mar. 25, 2011 $34,596,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Aug. 12, 2011 $99,550,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 8, 2012 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 2, 2013 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 5, 2014 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 22, 2015 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 13, 2016 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2017 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $16,960,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $157,793,710
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $222,896,077
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $22,000,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $26,365,000
Canada News Media Association May 1, 2019 $14,400,000
***Community Radio Fund Of Canada Apr. 1, 2020 $2,000,000
***Ethor Media Ltd. Jul. 27, 2020 $413,883
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $1,403,958
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $1,252,398
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,252,398
***Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $313,100
***New Media Manitoba Aug. 20, 2020 $100,000
***On Screen Manitoba Incorporated Aug. 18, 2020 $75,000
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $1,132,104
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $441,941
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $441,941
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $431,271
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $265,813
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $125,359
***Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $110,485
***Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $66,453
***sMedia Ventures Aug. 5, 2020 $266,554
Telefilm Canada Jun. 8, 2007 $29,000,000
Telefilm Canada Jun. 10, 2009 $14,300,000
***YMCA Of Greater Saint John Sep. 4, 2020 $25,000

This is by no means all of the grants that have come recently. But it should give an idea about where the public’s money is going.

***Indicates it was specified as Covid-19 funding

3. Canada Financing Covid Propaganda Abroad

NAME PLACE YEAR AMOUNT
***Community Media Network Jordan 2020 $30,169
***La Voz Publica para la Verificacion del Discurso Publico (Chequeado) Argentina 2020 $28,750
***Red para la Diversidad Sexual (REPADIS) Paraguay 2020 $15,246
***Salam Afghanistan Media Organization Afghanistan 2020 $62,000

Serious question: why are we funding these programs abroad? It’s bad enough the brainwashing that goes on domestically, but this maybe even worse.

***Indicates it was specified as Covid-19 funding

4. Canadian Media Long Term Dependents

Various media in Canada, such as television, radio, newspapers have long been dependent on the Government, (or rather, taxpayers), to remain viable. The consequence is that when Ottawa or the Provinces have agendas to implement, few will be in any position to investigate them too hard. The result is almost universal media approval.

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program: “Pandemic Bucks” To Fight Misinformation

Nothing screams dystopian nightmare quite like using tax dollars to deploy artificial intelligence to find ways to counter critics of the “pandemic” narrative. It’s not like the AI could be put to good use, or anything like that.

Now, many of these groups aren’t getting money specifically for this, but the same “disinformation” research could still be applied in most cases.

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. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance for research and citizen-focused activities. The Program aims to support democracy and social cohesion in Canada by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats.

The Government is handing out money to certain organizations to promote its version of responsible journalism. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The following organizations are eligible for funding:

  • a national, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, community or professional organization, society or association which has voluntarily associated itself for a not-for-profit purpose, and which has the mandate to represent its membership or community
  • a not-for-profit organization, including non-governmental or umbrella organizations, non-profit corporations, community groups, regulatory bodies or apprenticeship authorities, or associations serving the private sector
  • a university or educational institution
  • an individual researcher, acting in his or her personal capacity
  • a research institution with an established record in relevant field(s), intending to undertake work in a Canadian context
  • a for-profit Canadian and Canadian-owned institution with a record of developing and delivering programming, and performing research or related activities relevant to the goals of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative, provided that the nature and the intent of the activity is non-commercial

Now, who’s getting the money?

NAME YEAR AMOUNT
Alex Wilner and Casey Babb Aug. 10, 2020 $9,900
Alperin, Juan P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Asian Environmental Association – HUA Foundation Apr. 1, 2020 $64,660
BILAL Community & Family Centre Aug. 15, 2020 $40,000
Calgary Animated Objects Society Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Centre for Democracy and Development Oct. 22, 2018 $49,420
The Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Sep. 1, 2020 $38,000
Côté, Catherine Mar. 22, 2020 $8,000
Chun, Wendy H.K. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
CIVIX Nov. 15, 2018 $23,000
Colasante, Tyler Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Concordia University Oct. 1, 2020 $39,270
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, David Jones Dec. 17, 2019 $49,916
David Morin, Marie-Ève Carignan Dec. 4, 2020 $44,838
Digital Public Square Mar. 1, 2020 $679,176
Evans, Jennifer V. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Fleerackers, Alice L. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Gingras, Marie-Pier Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Grisdale, Sean E. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Hodson, Jaigris N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Institute For Canadian Citizenship Mar. 24, 2020 $490,880
Institute For Democracy, Media & Culture Jul. 27, 2020 $35,750
Institute On Governance Oct. 1, 2020 $100,000
International Republican Institute Mar. 15, 2019 $2,973,531
Internews Network Mar. 19, 2020 $3,172,323
IRIS Communications Oct. 1, 2020 $99,500
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
Ketchum, Alexandra D. Mar. 22, 2020 $23,455
Kingdom Acts Foundation Sep. 1, 2020 $70,500
Lavigne, Mathieu Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Lennox, Rebecca Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Macewan University Nov. 1, 2020 $69,000
Mack, Amy C. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Magazines Canada May 15, 2019 $63,000
Manchester Metropolitan University Feb. 1, 2020 $214,837
Matthews, Kyle Apr. 20, 2020 $33,377
McLevey, John V.P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Moisse, Katie Mar. 22, 2020 $13,417
Nathalie Furrer Aug. 10, 2020 $10,000
Nelson, Kim A. Mar. 22, 2020 $24,498
Neubauer, Robert J. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
PeaceGeeks Society Nov. 11, 2015 $46,200
Pennycook, Gordon R. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
QuantSpark Foundation Feb. 26, 2020 $1,155,622
Rupantar Oct. 28, 2018 $24,996
Ruslan Stefanov, Director, Jul. 3, 2018 $15,000
Ryerson University Apr. 1, 2019 $290,250
Ryerson University Jan. 1, 2020 $225,300
Ryerson University Sep. 18, 2020 $97,407
Science North Sep. 1, 2020 $40,000
Simon Fraser University Jan. 19, 2019 $28,750
Simon Fraser University – Int’l Cybercrime Research Oct. 1, 2020 $96,600
Taylor, Emily Jan. 1, 2020 $33,250
Trybun Jan. 21, 2019 $7,114
Young, Hilary A.N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
York University Nov. 1, 2020 $99,956

This is what your tax dollars go towards. Check this link for general disinformation grants, this for propaganda, and this one for specific CV-19 disinfo grants. It’s worth pointing out that for much of the research, even though it may not list the “pandemic” specifically, the information learned could still be applied to it. Besides, the dates are pretty suspicious.

As discussed here, some “fact checking” groups like CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights have extensive political ties, which call into question anything they do produce.

Another updated list is available from Newswire. Nice to see someone else addressing it.

3. Ryerson University’s Social Media Lab

As the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to spread across the world, so too does the flow of information and misinformation related to the virus. In a recent announcement by the Government of Canada, external link, researchers at the Ted Rogers School of Management’s Social Media Lab, in collaboration with researchers at Royal Roads University, received funding to examine the spread of digital misinformation related to the coronavirus. The study seeks to mitigate the spread of misinformation, stigma and fear through education.

The study, Inoculating Against an Infodemic: Microlearning Interventions to Address CoV Misinformation, will be a two-year study that aims to develop online learning interventions to improve people’s knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19.

Researchers at the Social Media Lab have already created a portal, external link designed to track and combat misinformation related to COVID-19.

Ryerson University has started a 2 year program designed to track “misinformation” trends, and to look for ways to counter it online. Of course, if it contradicts the official narrative, it must be tracked and countered.

4. Concordia University’s Disinfo Research

The event will be livestreamed on the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies’ Facebook and YouTube pages.

The Canadian Coalition to Counter COVID Digital Disinformation is a project organized by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies with funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizens Initiative. The team is working to enhance Canadian citizens’ digital literacy and resiliency as they come in contact with misinformation and disinformation relating to COVID-19.

As part of this work, a series of digital townhalls will be held on issues like foreign interference, conspiracy theories and fake news. Stay tuned for more events hosted on these topics.

Concordia took nearly $40,000 to undertake this effort in researching and ultimately combating “misinformation”. Note: institutions like this never seem to question whether the narratives they push is itself fake news. It’s comical.

5. Financing Your Own Brainwashing

Not only does the Government donate to newspapers, periodicals, and other media, but it finances research into combatting misinformation. What this (really) means is that finding ways to prevent the truth from coming out.

And if that doesn’t work, Government can just pass laws to ban opinions it doesn’t like. This has been proposed for nearly a year now. Be aware, that if the efforts fail with the various Government programs, it’s possible different views will just be legislated away.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html#a2
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(4) https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ongoing-support-for-research-and-media-literacy-projects-as-canada-continues-to-fight-online-disinformation-816455316.html
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-46-dominic-leblanc-proposes-law-to-ban-misinformation-about-virus/