Category: Media

Posted on

More On Vaccine Hesitancy Research, Convincing People It’s Safe

Go onto Health Canada’s site and search the term “vaccine hesitancy”. You will find over 200 papers, studies, and listings — some very in depth work. Keep in mind, this is ONLY Health Canada. See #6 for mandatory CV-19 vaccines.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Motivational Interviewing

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is among the top threats to global health and few effective strategies address this growing problem. In Canada, approximatively 20% of parents/caregivers are concerned about their children receiving vaccines. Trying to convince them by simply providing the facts about vaccination may backfire and make parents/caregivers even more hesitant. In this context, how can health care providers overcome the challenge of parental decision-making needs regarding vaccination of their children?

Motivational interviewing aims to support decision making by eliciting and strengthening a person’s motivation to change their behaviour based on their own arguments for change. This approach is based on three main components: the spirit to cultivate a culture of partnership and compassion; the processes to foster engagement in the relationship and focus the discussion on the target of change; and the skills that enable health care providers to understand and address the parent/caregiver’s real concerns.

With regard to immunization, the motivational interviewing approach aims to inform parents/caregivers about vaccinations, according to their specific needs and their individual level of knowledge, with respectful acceptance of their beliefs. The use of motivational interviewing calls for a respectful and empathetic discussion of vaccination and helps to build a strong relationship.

Numerous studies in Canada, including multicentre randomized controlled trials, have proven the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing approach. Since 2018, the PromoVac strategy, an educational intervention based on the motivational interviewing approach, has been implemented as a new practice of care in maternity wards across the province of Quebec through the Entretien Motivationnel en Maternité pour l’Immunisation des Enfants (EMMIE) program.

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing

To be absolutely clear, the above research, and what follows has nothing to do with research into CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE you that they already are.

3. Challenges And Approaches

Because causes of vaccine hesitancy and determinants of vaccine acceptance are complex and multidimensional, there is no “magic bullet” that can address vaccine hesitancy and enhance vaccine acceptance. A summary of the findings from 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance reveals that simply communicating evidence about vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy related beliefs and fears (41). Furthermore, failure to properly and systematically evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions across the spectrum of vaccine hesitant individuals and specific vaccines makes it difficult to know whether the results can be transferable or suitable for widespread implementation.

Should the public health community respond to anti-vaccination activists (48)? Leask suggests that adversarial approaches against such activists can in fact enliven the battle and contribute to a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic (49). Most of the time, pro-vaccine advocates should “play the issue, not the opponent” (49). Efforts should be made to stop them only when anti-vaccination activists’ advice could lead to direct harm.

Future public health vaccine promotion efforts need to embrace Internet and social media possibilities and proactively promote the importance and safety of vaccines rather than adopt a reactive approach to anti-vaccination activists’ arguments (47,50,51). The role of social media in vaccine hesitancy creates a need to develop appropriate strategies for online communication. Such strategies should aim to provide vaccine supportive information, address misinformation published online and correspond to parents’ needs and interests (29).

vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches

In a parallel with the climate change scam, a technique suggested is to be dismissive of the idea that there is any debate. If you can’t win with facts, then avoid the discussion altogether.

It’s interesting that the recommendation is to avoid engaging with people “vaccine deniers” who bring well researched and well thought out arguments.

4.Best Practices For Addressing Hesitancy

1. Identify target audience and establish trust
“Understanding the perspectives of the people for whom immunization services are intended, and their engagement with the issue”, wrote Goldstein and colleagues, “is as important as the information that experts want to communicate” (8). The amount, content and type of information that is needed to move a vaccine-hesitant individual toward vaccine acceptance differs greatly from the basic information needed by a person who is already favourable to vaccination and intends to vaccinate. Research has shown that vaccine-hesitant individuals are “active information-seekers” that are looking for “balanced” information presenting both pros and cons of vaccination in order to make an informed decision about vaccines (9,10). Their information needs are usually not fulfilled with typical information from public health authorities, as this information generally does not usually provide references to scientific studies and is often perceived as focusing on the benefits of vaccines and not discussing the potential risks of vaccines (11). Addressing those who are strongly anti-vaccines merit specific strategies. This is not the subject of the current paper but will be addressed in a future CANVax Brief.

5. Test communication prior to launching
It is important to test a communication material prior to launching to make sure it is working as intended for the target audience. The results might be surprising: a study showed that information given in frequency formats (e.g. one out of 10 infants will have a fever after a vaccination) were perceived as more risky than the same information conveyed in probabilistic terms (e.g. 10% of infants will have a fever after a vaccination) (27). Studies have also shown that as many as one out of two adults do not have the necessary skills to interpret probabilities and other mathematical concepts

vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material

This works just like commercial marketing. Target your audience, and avoid getting into “factual” arguments with people who have actually done their homework.

5. Progress Against Vaccine Hesitancy

Fortunately, researchers like Dr. Ève Dubé, with Université Laval are looking into this important issue. Dr. Dubé is an anthropologist, a researcher, and a professor, who works on vaccine hesitancy. Her research aims at understanding the social, cultural, and political contexts that influence individuals’ and groups’ beliefs and practices around vaccination.

She works with various health organizations to transfer research into practice.

One of the aims of her research program is to address vaccine hesitancy by supporting parents to make informed vaccination decisions and by ensuring that healthcare providers are prepared to communicate effectively with vaccine-hesitant parents.

She is currently leading different projects on vaccine hesitancy such as a study based on interviews with vaccine-hesitant parents to look at information sources on vaccination and information needs and preferences of parents to make an informed decision about vaccination. She is also leading a project to develop and pilot-test interventions to address vaccine hesitancy around the HPV vaccine in the context of school-based programs in Canada.

Vaccine hesitancy is a very, VERY widely researched field. A lot of money is tied up in ensuring that people don’t start asking the wrong questions and putting the pieces together.

Ève Dubé also co-authors the next piece, which includes entertaining the idea of making this coronavirus vaccine mandatory.

6. Legislating Vaccine Compliance

Given that queries have also been raised in the press about whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine(s), when available, should be made mandatory for some or all in Canada, this Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Brief provides an overview and brief discussion of what mandatory childhood vaccination means followed by discussions of scope and framework factors to consider. Also discussed are the reported outcomes, including reports of unintended consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines and consideration for a mandatory approach
While a poll in Canada in late April 2020 reported strong support amongst the general public for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory (21), this strategy can only be considered when these vaccines become widely available in Canada. Given that a mandatory program has costs both in terms of implementation and monitoring (5), decisions need to rest on what additional benefit is hoped to be achieved. If vaccine uptake is already expected to be high amongst groups deemed necessary for the control of the spread of COVID-19, then the added costs of a mandatory program are likely not justified. In contrast, if the rates of uptake are low and the ease of access and other strategies known to improve uptake have been addressed, then a mandatory approach may be worth pursuing. Careful attention must be paid to whether this will be an incentive or penalty program, how it will be monitored and by whom (5).

vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

At least some honesty here. It is acknowledged in writing that the public is wondering if CV-19 vaccines will ever become mandatory. Interestingly, it doesn’t address that concern. Instead, it just defers the issue until later.

7. How Rampant Is This Research?

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing
vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches
vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material
vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

These are only a few of course. Much more available here.

8. Immunization Partnership Fund

This was addressed in Part 8, but worth another look.

9. Gates Finances Vaccine Hesitancy Research

Although small by its standards, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has made some contributions to vaccine hesitancy work. It’s just good business.

10. WHO Researches Vaccine Hesitancy

A search on the World Health Organization’s site under “vaccine hesitancy” results in 117 possible matches.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

11. WHO Establishes National Standards


WHO.establishment.national.standards.vaccines

This is a 2011 publication, but the World Health Organization sets national standards for what vaccinations countries need apparently.

12. WHO’s July 9, 2020 Guidance

How to prevent transmission
The overarching aim of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19(1) is to control COVID-19 by suppressing transmission of the virus and preventing associated illness and death. To the best of our understanding, the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets. Under some circumstances airborne transmission may occur (such as when aerosol generating procedures are conducted in health care settings or potentially, in indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings elsewhere). More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their actual significance for transmission of COVID-19.

WHO.july9.new.science.supposedly.uncovered

In this latest version, the World Health Organization has removed earlier comments about there being no evidence to support wearing masks. Now, the deadliest virus in history can be stopped by a simple piece of cloth.

13. WHO: May 22 Guidance On Mass Vaccination

who.mass.vaccination.strategy

Note: the World Health Organization doesn’t have an issue with mass vaccination of an entire population during this “pandemic”. They just want people to be safe, apparently.

14. “Vaccine Hesitancy” Is Just Marketing

They refer to it as overcoming vaccine hesitancy. However these are marketing techniques to convince people that these vaccines are safe, and only crazies are questioning it.

Some of the techniques include pretending to care about people’s concerns, and feigning a legitimate relationship. Also, strong critics should be treated dismissively, and questions evaded. It should not be even entertained that there might be serious questions about these drugs.

There is a strong parallel with the climate change hoax. Both use psychological manipulation to ward off valid questions about what is going on.

This is just a small sample of the work deployed to convince people that these are safe. There is much more to look into.

Posted on

Canada’s Open Borders Encourage Human Smuggling/Trafficking

Human trafficking, smuggling, and child exploitation are directly connected to the open borders policies that Western Governments have supported for years.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Check the link for more information on the TSCE series. Also, more information on Canada’s borders is available here, here, here, here, and here. Open borders, sanctuary cities, and human smuggling/trafficking are directly linked. The first 2 help enable the other 2.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for previous CBSA rules, air departure loophole.
CLICK HERE, for current CBSA exit system for air departures.
http://archive.is/v25lM
CLICK HERE, for 2016 proposal to have entry/exit system.
CLICK HERE, for UNODC on the smuggling/open borders connection.
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review
CLICK HERE, for Canada ending “Safe Country” designations.
http://archive.is/dShJ9
CLICK HERE, for UNHCR partnership list.
CLICK HERE, for full text of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s policy on DNA testing migrants.
CLICK HERE, for Canada checking ancestry sites, DNA tests.
http://archive.is/mD5JB
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/refugee.dna_.testing.unchr_.1.pdf
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75: terrorism/child crimes.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent.

3. Conservatives Act As Controlled Opposition

To make this clear: so-called “conservatives” are fully complicit in efforts to erase the Canadian border, and to allow people to come en masse. While they SAY a lot of the right things, their actions speak very differently. Conservatives cannot be trusted on issues such as border security or immigration.

4. Entry/Exit System Finally Implemented

Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.
.
Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.
.
Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.

Simply put, travel to countries other than the U.S. are not logged by the Canada Border Services Agency. That site has been altered, and now contains the following information.

Effective June 25, 2020, the CBSA requires air carriers to submit manifests, including those carriers that previously tested and were certified for the Air Exit Program prior to 2020. To begin onboarding, the CBSA encourages all air carriers to contact us as soon as possible.

In the previous system, there was a major loophole in the exit system. Exits were only tracked of people going to the United States (by air, sea, or land crossings). Since June 25, however, all air travel out of the country is logged by the CBSA, closing a very large loophole.

This is good news to see this implemented. However, CBSA confirmed that they don’t actually do anything with the information unless they are looking for specific people.

Interestingly, it is the Trudeau Government that implemented this change. The previous Harper Government was in power for 10 years but chose not to do anything about it. Sure, it took 4 years to come into effect.

5. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link


Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.

6. (Foreign) NGOs Trying To Open Borders

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

By its own admission, the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) partners with more than 900 NGOs and civil society groups.

7. (Foreign) NGOs Wage Lawfare In Court

This was discussed in other articles, but there have been at least 3 major attempts in Federal Court to strike down the concept of a “safe country”, and make it easier for people identifying as refugees to come to Canada. See this page for a summary. Groups like Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches are not entirely Canadian, despite what names they may go by.

8. Abolishing The “Safe Country” Concept

On May 17, 2019, Canada removed the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) practice. That meant some 42 countries — mostly in Europe — which were considered safe countries were not anymore. The only remaining one was the United States, as covered by the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

9. UNHCR Was Always A Party To S3CA

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Something few people know is that the UNHCR is actually a party to the Safe 3rd Country Agreement. It is not just an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but includes the UN in a consulting role.

10. Federal Court Erasing S3CA Altogether

Thanks to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada, the Safe Third Country Agreement has been struck down entirely. This means that anyone “identifying” as a refugee can now come to Canada from the United States.

Canada does have the option to appeal, and this ruling gives 6 months to draft new legislation. However, with this government, it seems unlikely either will happen.

11. Opening The Floodgates LEGALLY

No, bringing people into Canada in large numbers doesn’t have to be in a sneaky way. Keep in mind, all parties support genocidal levels of replacement migration, and support various globalist initiatives. Conservatives are just as bad, however many people are duped into thinking otherwise.

12. Erasing Borders: CANZUK/UN GMC


(Andrew Scheer finally speaks on the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact. He feigns being indignant, and pretends that borders are something conservatives actually care about. He would come across as believable, if he showed any consistency.)

Conservatives offer nothing except the illusion of opposing. In this example: Andrew Scheer claims to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact (after initially remaining silent). However, CANZUK — an open borders treaty that can be expanded — is official party policy. Some real mental gymnastics are at play here. Furthermore, Erin O’Toole explicitly states at 2:00 in the CANZUK video that he wants to expand CANZUK to other countries.

There is bipartisan support for open borders. But, do politicians at least enact measures to ensure that people, especially children, are not subject to exploitation? Not exactly.

13. Reluctance For DNA Testing: Child/Parent

When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship (where it has been claimed) or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.

Canada only does DNA testing of alleged family members when it cannot establish otherwise that there is a relationship. This has been public for years now, but is still rare. Considering the amount of fraud that has been documented elsewhere, logic dictates that this should be the norm, in order to protect children from being trafficked. Even the UNHCR frowns on the practice of DNA testing, calling on it to be a last resort. The UNCHR also advises not to deny applications simply because of the DNA may not match. See this post for more background information.

14. Weakening Child Sex-Crime Penalties

Because of Bill C-75, criminal prosecutors now have discretion to try the following offences summarily (lesser) as opposed to mandatory indictment (more severe). Check out the list:

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex (reduced)
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

One of Trudeau’s big bills (Bill C-75) in his first term was to reduce the criminal penalties for many sex crimes against children, and for terrorism offences.

15. Lowering The Age Of Consent For Anal

One of Trudeau’s earlier pieces of legislation was Bill C-32. However, the contents were eventually shoved into Bill C-75. This would have reduced the age of consent for anal sex form 18 to 16. If Trudeau was interested in “equality”, perhaps a better solution all around would be raising the overall age to 18.

16. Controlled Opposition “Tough On Crime”

Remember Stephen Harper, who was supposedly “tough on crime”? His idea of being hard on child sex offenders was raising the minimum sentence (for indictable offences), from 3 months to 1 year. That’s still pretty lenient, at least in most people’s eyes.

17. Courts Strike Mandatory Minimum Sentences

If it isn’t politically helpful to reduce the penalties, there is another option: have judges strike down existing penalties as “cruel and unusual”. Have a judge find some reasoning to make it work.

There are plenty of examples of this sort of this in action.

18. Sanctuary Cities Help “Disappear” People

toronto.human.trafficking.prevention

(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.

(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.

Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.

The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.

19. Child Exploitation As “Multiculturalism”

Along with racial and cultural differences, multiculturalism brings other serious problems. One of them is having to accept sketchy practices like child marriages, and grooming gangs as “being tolerant”. When there are no standards, then anything goes.

20. These Things Are Connected

There is a relationship between border security and trafficking or exploitation of people. The open borders policies of Western nations have the dual effect of allowing anyone to cross international lines, and of bringing incompatible ideologies with them. These are not random events, but a coordinated effort to overrun and replace our nations. This is a bipartisan effort — and no one is blameless in politics.

To borrow the famous quote: tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

Posted on

CV #46: Dominic LeBlanc Proposes Law To Ban “Misinformation” About Virus

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as the media, and free speech.

2. Recent Proposal To Require Licensing

Keep in mind, if was only back in February that the Federal Government had proposed making it mandatory for media personalities to be licensed. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault admits that the panel proposing it was formed in 2018 by the Liberals.

So the Liberals are no stranger to attacking free speech. In fairness though, the groups pushing for media licensing may be different than those pushing to ban research into coronavirus.

3. Quotes From CBC Article

The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.

LeBlanc told CBC News he is interested in British MP Damian Collins’s call for laws to punish those responsible for spreading dangerous misinformation online about the COVID-19 pandemic.

LeBlanc said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers, including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.

“Legislatures and Parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic, so it’s not a quick solution, but it’s certainly something that we would be open [to] as a government,” said LeBlanc.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.

Yes, this came out in April, but is worth revisiting. The Canadian Government is seriously open to the idea of cracking down on what it calls “misinformation” harmful to the public. Also disturbing is an NDP MP who is open to joining the Liberals in this. This is after calls in the UK for similar laws.

More recently, said Collins, the misinformation has shifted to conspiracy theories about what triggered the pandemic — claims that it was cooked up in a lab, for example. A conspiracy theory claiming the disease is caused by 5G wireless signals prompted attacks on wireless towers in the U.K.

The British government has set up a rapid response team to correct false information circulating online. Collins has launched a fact-checking site called Infotagion, along with Angus and Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith, among others.

No this is not just a Canadian problem. It’s a problem for people (globally) who want to expose and write about what is really happening.

4. LeBlanc & Microsoft President Smith

There’s been an online surge in disinformation and misinformation linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent weeks, along with cyber attacks on hospitals, says the head of one of the world’s tech giants.

Speaking at an event with Canadian Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc this morning, Microsoft president Brad Smith said his company has seen a recent shift in the pattern of online attacks and efforts to spread false rumours and lies about the pandemic.

Microsoft President met with Dominic LeBlanc in May to talk about the wave of misinformation that was all over the internet. Never mind the obvious fact that Microsoft was headed by Bill gates until very recently, who is pushing the vaccine agenda.

5. Social Media Collusion Already Exists

If we are going to have a law to ban “misinformation”, why don’t we start here? Social media companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook already work to promote the vaccine agenda. They already work together to dismiss critics. Wouldn’t that be a textbook case of what should be included in this proposed ban?

6. So What Exactly Is “Misinformation”?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam works for the World Health Organization?

Or how about that Deputy Prime Minister Chystia Freeland also is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum? And to mention Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of Canada, is as well? Is it “misinformation” to point out that the WEF was behind getting CV declared a pandemic, and now pushes the GREAT RESET?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that on August 4, Theresa Tam parroted the World Health Organization’s line about a vaccine not being a silver bullet?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry here, here, here, and here?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vast research done into vaccine hesitancy? This is research into psychological manipulation to convince people that vaccines are safe. Not research into MAKING safe vaccines, but research into CONVINCING you that they already are. See here and here.

Is it “misinformation” to point out M-132 was launched PRIOR to this pandemic, to finance drugs, and drug research for the entire world?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major and regular contributor to Imperial College London, who does the CV modelling?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vaccine bonds industry we send money to offers nothing of substance in return?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Provinces’ own data show the overwhelming majority of people recover on their own, with no vaccine?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the BC Provincial Health Officer repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting group sizes, but does it anyway?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, admitted that 50% of tests give false positives?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the World Health Organization doesn’t actually say to stay 2 metres apart?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lying and exaggerating by public officials of the virus death tolls?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that social media companies openly collude with governments in order to push the pro-vaccine agenda?

7. Still Just A Proposal (For Now)

While it seems to still just be an idea for consideration, it’s a chilling one. Such a law would effectively give the government the right to silence anyone who criticizes its agenda, REGARDLESS of how accurate or factual it may be.

On a personal note: could this site be shut down under the guise of “promoting misinformation”? Could all of this work cease to exist?

Posted on

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1198973132385738752
http://archive.is/yBp2k
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1198993450668048385
http://archive.is/A7WVH

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1288854760829980674

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1154304423344136192
http://archive.is/NT9zz
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1176238961947291649

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
.
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

Posted on

A Response To True North’s Call For Population Replacement

According to Candice Malcolm, diversity is necessary for a country to be successful. As long as there is some unifying element(s), it doesn’t matter how much you alter the makeup. (See archive, and pdf version)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

3. Context For This Article

Yes, this has been out for a few years, and should have been addressed then. However, the lies and misrepresentations are still as relevant today as they were then.

It is truly bizarre that Malcolm accurately identifies many of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism, but still insists that Canada needs to go ahead with it. Her essay reads like a parody of a nationalist: identifying all the problems, but still providing the wrong solution.

True, Malcolm is extremely pointed and critical of Trudeau. However, she is silent on the Conservative Party (and her ex-boss, Jason Kenney), doing exactly the same thing. All that differed was rhetoric. Once this double standard is shown, any semblance of objectivity disappears.

4. Conservative Inc. Influenced By Koch/Atlas

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

civitas.1.changes.to.directors.2016
Side note: Candice Malcolm is also part of Civitas.

5. Rebuke To True North Piece

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is known for his pithy one-liners and perfect soundbite platitudes. In the face of an illegal border crisis, a bizarre policy to “de-radicalize” and “re-integrate” ISIS terrorists, and growing skepticism over increasing immigration while neglecting Canada’s once-strong integration policies, Trudeau responds with the same simplistic response.

Canada’s once strong immigration policies? This would be a good time to point out that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney while he was Immigration Minister. So did her husband. Yet it isn’t disclosed anywhere on True North’s website. Nor are their ties to various Koch/Atlas groups mentioned. Nejatian is a director at True North, yet you would have to contact Corporations Canada or Canada Revenue to find that out.

As a press secretary for Kenney, Malcolm’s role would effectively be to act as Kenney’s mouthpiece. This means toeing the line on the (then) record levels of people the Harper Government brought into Canada.

All of these factors would certainly factor into the tone and agenda that True North offers its readers. Yet Malcolm discloses none of it.

“Diversity is our strength.”
.
What exactly does he mean by “diversity”? What about less desirable types of diversity, such as diversity of core values? Or diverse moral codes, where some Canadians do not value women’s rights or the rights of the LGBT community? What about those who believe group rights ought to supercede the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed through the charter?
.
Diversity of core values, beliefs and culture can easily create societal fractures, and put our coveted peace and stability at risk.

Malcolm actually gets it partly right, but misses the bigger picture.

For an awful lot of people, values are derived at least in part from religious beliefs. Topics like equality of women and gay rights do vary considerably by faiths. Yet Malcolm claims that Canadians aren’t defined by religious identity.

She also claims that a diversity of culture creates social fractures, but seems to think there is no connection between race/ethnicity and culture. Culture must be an entirely sociological construct, without any biological basis at all.

Is Canada simply a United Nations of different people with different values and different moral codes? How are we, then, to deal with the corruption that plagues the UN itself, including vile anti-Semitism, a failed consensus on what constitutes basic human rights, and a lack of an agreed upon authority to enforce laws and norms?
.
Canada’s defacto policy of ever more immigration and ever more diversity was the subject of a now-controversial Twitter essay by Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

If you make it a point to continuously import large numbers of people from all over the world, then yes, it becomes a “United Nations” of different people.

Bernier’s tweeting did make national news. However, he acted as if diversity was something to be celebrated, and that only abstract ideas were what unified us.

Bernier argues that an endless drive for diversity, with no emphasis on what it means to be Canadian, will push us towards division and balkanization. He asks, “if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something?” And he goes on to raise a concern I’ve raised many times — what will happen to a tolerant and liberal society if it welcomes, en masse, individuals with illiberal and intolerant beliefs, practices and traditions?
.
Despite the predictable pearl-clutching from the Liberal media, and the one-sided rush to condemn Bernier for wrongthink, the Beauce MP raises an important, dare I say obvious, criticism of Trudeau’s open-border mantra and obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake.

While Trudeau’s open love for diversity and globalism is revolting, mainstream conservatives in Canada support much the same thing. They are just more subtle about it. Candice Malcolm and her Conservative Inc. allies support white genocide and population replacement, just as long it is done in an orderly fashion.

If you replace the founding stock of the nation, the nation dies. It doesn’t matter if you celebrate it as diversity or not.

Pluralistic nation-states have long existed, Canada being a prime example. And the basic notions that tie our society together are based not on our differences, which are many, but on the commonalities that unite us.

From an abstract perspective this is fine, but the devil is in the details. Malcolm doesn’t really think that there should be meaningful commonalities to unite us.

Remember: conservatives and civic nationalists don’t believe that ethnicity should be a factor in the makeup of a country. They don’t care that there is no blood bond between people. Cities are divided up that way — and all done voluntarily — but race is a social construct.

Beyond that, they don’t even support cultural homogeneity. Conservatives as a whole support multiculturalism, which instantly leads to parallel societies.

What about a common heritage or traditions? Conservatives don’t even support that. They seem to care little when parks or streets or monuments to foreign bodies get erected in Canada. There is no concern that foreign histories and heritage begin to replace our own.

A common religion? Well Christianity is under attack, while all others are allowed to grow. And considering the connection between faith and values (a link Malcolm denies), good luck getting people to agree on much of anything.

The point is, that when pressed for specifics, conservatives and civic nationalists will eventually admit that they don’t want any concrete bonds between people. Perhaps free markets, the economy, and the constitution are all that we need.

It is our common features — languages, history, traditions, laws, shared culture and values — that form the basis of a pluralistic nation-state. This is the “core identity” of our nationhood. In addition to this basic consensus, individuals and communities are free to engage in their own religion and traditions — all the things that make Canada a wonderful, interesting and unique place to live.

This might be an okay take on “pluralistic nation-state” if it had any semblance of reality. However, multicultural societies don’t share any of these things — except possibly the laws.

In order to preserve things like language, history, traditions, shared culture and religion, some degree of balkanization is required. After all, these things to do exist within a few people, but a society as a whole.

One only needs to look at the Greater Toronto Area (or any “diverse” city), to see it carved up and balkanized along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Saying we have “shared values” sounds great, but people would rather live with people who share a common identity.

This is what conservatives and civic nationalists claim they don’t understand. We can talk all day about values, but it is a common identity that bonds a group.

As for the argument against identity politics, let’s dispel something: a society requires both men and women to function. Period. Promoting globohomo the way it is serves to fracture society. Beyond those 2 examples though, identity is what bonds a group.

In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values. And yet, increasingly in Canada, we are forbidden from articulating or discussing what these values may entail.

We used to. The 1971 Canadian Census listed the country as 96% European. Christianity, and its many offshoots were the basis for much of the law and culture here. Canada was effectively, a white, Christian ethnostate. It is only in the last 50 years that “forced multiculturalism” has been brought to the West.

Malcolm pretends this is not the case, and claims that it is abstract values that bond and unite us, a philosophy known as “civic nationalism”. She also conflates identity and values, which are 2 completely different things.

INDENTITY is what the people have in common, which includes things like race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, customs, traditions and heritage. These are what bind the people, and arguably race is the strongest unifier there is.

VALUES are a set of abstract ideas which hold society together in a civic sense. They include things like free speech, tolerance, or various laws and codes.

Obviously, values are much more fluid than identity, and can change quickly. The result is that society can break down when these values diverge. By contrast, having a common ethnicity, religion, culture, language, etc… society still holds together, even as values and standards change.

But in Trudeau’s diverse, post-national utopia, would there be a shared identity? Would our laws be commonly agreed upon and equally enforced? Without a commitment to nationhood, how would governments command legitimacy, and would our communities live in peace?

This is a good paragraph on its own. And a lot of valid points. One wouldn’t think that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney (and by extension the Conservative Party of Canada), when Stephen Harper imported the 3rd World in record numbers.

Malcolm seems to have no problems with importing a replacement population when her Conservative bosses are the ones doing it. However, it’s totally wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

As for the scale of this: replacing the old stock has been done by successive administrations. Both are just as guilty in facilitating it.

Pluralism, not just diversity, is our strength, and yet, Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state differs from our current position as a pluralistic nation-state. Remove the nation — the unifying factor — and what are you left with? What is the common cause?
.
This lack of identity or commitment to shared values is particularly troubling given the Liberal push for immigration on an even larger scale.

Yet, silence when Conservatives do the same thing.

She goes on and on about pluralism being a strength, but never explains how. It’s also never explained how large numbers of people with nothing in common can expect to come without drastically changing the nation.

Worse, it’s become hip among the intellectual avant-garde to argue for open borders and drastic measures to boost Canada’s population, with even some (misguided) conservative intellectuals arguing that Canada ought to intentionally boost its population to 100 million by the end of the century.

The 100 million is probably a reference to Century Initiative, an NGO that does want to boost Canada’s population. Yet Malcolm’s handlers in the CPC have been pushing for near-open borders immigration policies?

If Canada were to open its doors to, say, about a million people per year, for the next 80 years, would Canada continue to be a Western liberal democracy? Would English and French be broadly spoken? Would there even be official languages?

Malcolm seems to be unaware, (or perhaps pretends to be unaware), at just how many people are entering the country annually. 3 Notable programs are: (a) student visas; (b) temporary foreign workers; and (c) those in the International Mobility Program. While these are billed as “temporary” options, there are many options to stay. Since Canada doesn’t even have a proper entry/exit system, who knows how many of those people are still in the country?

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

For some context: Canada went from admitting 60,000 student visas in 2003 to almost 360,000 in 2018. That is nearly 6 times as large over a 15 year span. Additionally, we went from about 80,000 temporary work visas in 2003 to over 320,000 (TFWP and IMP combined) in 2018.

What kind of values would these hypothetical Canadians posses, and what kind of political leaders would they elect? Would our laws continue to be equally applied, or would there be special caveats and exemptions for cultural and religious communities?

Malcolm raises a great argument in favour of a moratorium on immigration. Changing the demographics leads to irreversible voting shifts, typically to more left-leaning politicians. Except, instead of that, she uses it to claim that a better job has to be done about it.

Could we continue to afford universal social services, including healthcare, education and social welfare? What language would these services be provided in?

Again valid points, and would be great to use to advocate for massive cuts to immigration. But Malcolm doesn’t do that.

Would Canada continue to be a safe, friendly and welcoming society? Would our liberal tolerance be extended to those who are illiberal or intolerant? Would newcomers bring their ancient tribal feuds and hatred with them? Would practices like FGM and forced marriage be permitted? Would we import the foreign wars of the world — Israelis against Palestinians, Shi’ites against Sunnis, Russians against Ukrainians, and so on — into our own backyard?

More great arguments to support the position of slashing immigration. However, Malcolm believes (or claims to believe), that a certain level of diversity is needed to keep a nation healthy.

Would newcomers to Canada be selected based on education and training — Canada’s longstanding practice of skills-based immigration? Or would we simply allow any newcomer who arrives at our doorstep and wants to live in Canada?

About this “skills-based” immigration that Malcolm talks about, why not get into the costs of it? Plenty of college and university graduates can’t find work in their fields because successive governments — both Liberal and Conservative — have flooded market with foreign workers. This is done in a deliberate effort to drive down wages.

This is not restricted to high skilled workers either. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example, was specifically used for entry level work because it allowed employers to ultimately pay less to import foreigners than to hire Canadians.

Malcolm was working for Jason Kenney when the TFW scandal hit in 2013.

Would there be a united Canadian identity? Or would our society splinter into identity groups with the pernicious concept of the “hyphenated-Canadians” — with some other identity coming before being Canadian?

Look at the next section. HUGE numbers of Chinese, Indian, Philippino, Iranian, Pakistani and other migrants are being brought into Canada on a yearly basis. This is white genocide. Malcolm complains now, but had no issue with the practice when working for the Ministry of Immigration.

How long would Canada continue to exist as a political entity? Perhaps Quebec would seek to separate. Or perhaps it would be aggrieved minorities, stateless ethnic groups or religious fanatics who would seek to carve out their own ethno-state.

Yes, all valid points. And Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney and the CPC while they were pushing immigration policies and programs to promote exactly this.

And that’s just the start. It would only be a matter of time before other groups — disgruntled Indigenous tribes, libertarian Albertans, Marxist communes, and any number of religious cults or zealous identity groups — would seek their own self-determination and self-governance.

Yet conservatives support the sort of immigration policies that encourage this. They claim that it won’t change the culture as long as there is “economic benefit”.

What would be the tipping point? 50 million? Or 150 million?

150 million by 2100 is about where we are headed now.

In the past, immigration policies were heavily restrictive, cost prohibitive and were coupled with a strong civil society promoting universal norms and values, conformity, and integration (frankly, assimilation).
.
The world is freer and more democratic today, thankfully, but that also makes integration all the more challenging.

Why is this change a good thing? Does Malcolm prefer easy immigration over social cohesion, integration and stability?

Trudeau has turned his back on integration, while steadily increasing the amount of immigration and without much concern for selecting those who will be successful in Canada. A casual observer of Europe’s failed immigration experiment can see that this is a toxic combination, and Trudeau’s schemes should be met with criticism and resistance from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Europe’s failed immigration experiment? Perhaps Malcolm has never heard of the KALERGI PLAN, a century old scheme to erase the peoples of Europe and replace them with a single group. Of course there has never been any sort of democratic vote, but all major parties are controlled.

Malcolm pretends that it is ONLY Trudeau who has been jacking up immigration in Canada. She deliberately omits that Brian Mulroney raised immigration rates in the 1980s to the highest they had ever been. Also, omits that Stephen Harper raised immigration to the highest rates ever (at that point)

She also omits being a staffer for Jason Kenney and pushing the mass migration narrative.

Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.

Societies that are homogenous are much more socially cohesive. Maybe Malcolm gets a kick out of driving across town to a “foreign country”, but most people don’t want that. They want societies which are high trust, and safe to live in. Multicultural countries do not offer this.

How is diversity important? Other than homogenous societies being boring? Wanting to change a nation’s makeup because you find it boring is pretty sociopathic.

Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.

Malcolm makes a disingenuous conclusion. North Koreans are miserable because they are closed to mass migration and globalized trade? Yeah, sure. I don’t suppose being a Communist dictatorship would have anything to do with that misery.

Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.

Recently, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, promoted the idea that Japan should import a replacement population in order to keep the GDP from falling. Vincent James covers it very well. Malcolm speaks in much the same tone. Instead of preserving the demographics, heritage, culture, and language, both of them think of Japan only in terms of money.

If Japan really needed more people (and it’s already pretty crowded), then perhaps a Hungarian style program of getting couples to have more children would be a better idea.

Spoiler: there is much more to a country than its GDP.

Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.

This is incoherent. Malcolm correctly identifies that the most multicultural/multiethnic societies that have collapsed, and cites 3 of them. Diversity was not the problem, she claims, but just done incorrectly. Apparently history will be different if only these vastly different groups had some common bond to unite them.

Multicultural states have only ever been able to hold together when it is done by force. And even then, it is not a permanent solution.

Alongside diversity, it’s unity that makes Canada a successful country and a great place to live. And we need to constantly work and strive for this unity, in the face of large-scale immigration, changing demographics and a societal obsession with cultural relativism, identity politics and anti-Western distortion.

Serious question: if it’s unity that makes Canada successful, and a great place to live, why do we need diversity as all?

We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.

We need pluralism and nationhood? How exactly does this work? How does importing millions of people who will balkanize Canada lead to a single nationhood?

It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.

Forget having a blood connection. Forget common culture, language, traditions, etc…. unity is just some abstract sense of being Canadian.

6. Recent Population Replacement In Canada

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Note: this is nowhere near the number of people entering Canada every year. Remember to add in hundreds of thousand of students and temporary workers, and various pilot programs.

Even if this were everyone, how exactly is a country supposed to be unified when large numbers of people from very different cultures are imported year after year? How are abstract ideas and values supposed to overcome such fundamental differences?

If Canada were a nation where race, ethnicity and religion didn’t matter, (as Malcolm claims), then it seem very strange that balkanization takes place along racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic lines. But that’s probably a racist thing to “notice”.

I realize that her prior political ties can make this a tricky subject to navigate. However, True North would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about how destructive multiculturalism really is.

7. Forced Diversity Is Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Serious question: how are forced diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, not forms of genocide? After all, they are calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, specifically, Europeans.

8. Malcolm Just Another Barbara Spectre

When rereading this essay from Malcolm, my mind instantly went to Barbara Lerner Spectre. She became infamous for saying that Europe had to adopt multiculturalism in order to survive.

How is Malcolm calling for pluralism any different than this? How is forcibly remaking the host culture — without a democratic mandate — not a form of genocide? Importing hundreds of thousands of people (now totally a million annually in recent years), completely remakes the demographics, culture, and traditions of the society. Yet Malcolm argues this is necessary, but gives the flimsiest of reasons.

It’s interesting how “conservatives” are so willing to jump on people like Trudeau for his immigration policies, but remain silent when their own people do much the same thing.

Of course there is an awful lot that True North Canada does not disclose to its readers. Rather than give real insight and research into immigration in Canada, it serves to post anti-Trudeau talking points.

Malcolm calls for essentially the same policies that will lead to the demise of Canada. But like other conservatives, she supports a more “patriotic” version of the same thing.

Posted on

The Mockingbird (Trudeau) Foundation Of Canada

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.
CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial.
CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Koch/Atlas both sides, AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #9: picking up on predictive programming.
CLICK HERE, for #10: Trudeau Foundation & media embeds.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Trudeau swapped out for body double?
CLICK HERE, for #12: Shanifa Nasser, racism narrative, FHA.
CLICK HERE, for #13: George Floyd “murder” was staged psy-op.
CLICK HERE, for #14: culture shift to make face masks normal.
CLICK HERE, for #15: response times, crisis actors, dummy swap.

2. Context For This Article

In order to fairly and accurately report on political and social events, the media has to have a certain level of detachment from the situation. Understandably, one cannot be a part of an organization, yet do any real investigative work on it. There is an obvious conflict of interest.

But that is exactly the case with the Trudeau Foundation. Many prominent members of the media (and former members) are part of the Foundation. This becomes a problem since they do little to hold the Foundation, or the Trudeau Family, to account for anything.

It must be mentioned, however, that Koch/Atlas cronies are prominent in so-called conservative media. Also, Post Media is the parent company of not only mainstream publications, but many alternative ones as well.

3(a). Candis Callison

From the UBC Graduate School of Journalism.

3(b). Susan Delacourt

Delacourt writes for (among other outlets), the Toronto Star.

3(c). Graham Fraser

After a long career in journalism, he is appointed Commissioner of Official Languages in Canada.

3(d). John Fraser

Now he is Executive Chair of the National NewsMedia Council.

3(e). Chantel Hebert

A longtime writer for many outlets, such as Toronto Star.

3(f). Daniel Lessard

After 39 years with Radio Canada, he gets the order of Canada.

3(g). Laxmi Parthasarathy

The Chief Operating Officer of Global Press.

3(h). Valerie Pringle

Much of Pringle’s career spent at the CBC.

3(i). Jeffrey Simpson

Former writer for the Globe & Mail.

3(j). John Stackhouse

Former editor-in-chief of the Globe & Mail

3(k). Robert Steiner

From the Munk School of Global Affairs, Steiner is a fellow.

3(l). Rosemary Thompson

20 years in journalism, mostly with CBC and CTV.

3(m). Marie Wilson

Yet another ex-CBC journalist on the Trudeau Foundation.

3(n). Lynn Zimmer

Former writer for Peterborough Examiner.

What is the result of the media being in bed with the Trudeau Foundation? For starters, they don’t seem to care about how many politicians or judges are also part of the group. Again, the conflict of interest is clear for everyone to see.

4(a). Ed Broadbent – NDP Leader

4(b).Philippe Couillard – QC Premier

4(c). Raymond Chretien – Ambassador

4(d). Michael Fortier – Senator

4(e). Michael Harcourt – BC Premier

4(f). Megan Leslie — NDP Deputy Leader

4(g). Wade MacLauchlan – PEI Premier

4(h). Elizabeth May – Green Party Leader

4(i). Anne McLellan – Deputy PM

4(j). Ed Roberts – NFLD Lt. Governor

4(k). Roy Romanow – Saskatchewan Premier

4(l). John Sims – Deputy AG

4(m). Chuck Strahl – Privy Council

Yes, politicians across the spectrum are also involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Makes one wonder how ideologically divided they are if membership in this group (named after a former Prime Minister), is no big deal for any of them. And things are about to get even worse still.

of course, many of these people have left their positions, but still.

5(a). Thomas Cromwell – SCC Justice

5(b). Marie DesChamps – SCC Justice

5(c). Louis LeBel – SCC Justice

5(d). Beverley McLachlin – SCC Justice

5(e). Louise Arbour – SCC Justice

5(f). Lynn Smith – BCSC Justice

Five former Supreme Court of Canada Justices, and 1 BC Supreme Court Justice are also members of the Trudeau Foundation. This won’t help with the impression that the judiciary is independent of the executive branch of government.

6. Jacques Bougie – SNC Lavalin

This person being with both Trudeau Foundation and on the SNC Lavalin Board of Directors wouldn’t have anything to do with how Lavalin got its deferred prosecution agreement, would it? No, didn’t think so.

Of course let’s not forget John McCall MacBain, head of the European Climate Foundation, or Roy Heenan, co-founder of the law firm Heenan Blaikie.

7. Are They All Involved?

Why is the mainstream media in Canada so hesitant to report on topics like the Trudeau Foundation, and why won’t they go into depth when they do? Consider the makeup of past and present members of the Trudeau Foundation:

  • Prominent members of the media
  • Politicians of all parties
  • Supreme Court Justices
  • Members of academia

What you see is an organization that has members of: (a) the media; (b) politicians; (c) the courts; and (d) universities, all under the same umbrella. There is no independence here, no checks and balances.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress