Category: Media

Posted on

World Economic Forum And Emotional Manipulation To Boost “Vaccine Confidence”

It’s interesting the claim that 73% of people globally support getting the vaccine, while this video is ratioed pretty hard. Small sample size, but still. And if everyone is proud of the work they do, why exactly is the video unlisted?

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 media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

YouTube Webinar On Increasing Vaccine Confidence
IRS Charity Tax Records Search
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Heidi Larson’s LinkedIn Page
Vaccine Confidence Project Leadership
Imperial College London And Their Gates Funding
Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, Gates FinancingVaccine Confidence Project Twitter Account
Ben Page’s LinkedIn Page
Tan Chuan’s Profile Page For Yale
Mustafa Alrawi’s LinkedIn Page

3. WEF Talk On Increasing Vaccine Confidence

This 1/2 hour talk was filled with lots of important information. Let’s pull some of the main points out.

To address the elephant in the room: at no point does this panel address vaccine safety, or ways to make them more safe. Instead, it’s all about PERSUADING people that they already are safe. A huge difference.

Heidi Larson works for both the Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Those organizations have ties to big pharma, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Larson openly admits that she works with Facebook, monitoring what she calls “misinformation”. She encourages social media companies to delete certain topics under the guise of “safety”.

Providing information no longer enough. In order to convince people, “telling stories” may be seen as a more effective technique to pitch the vaccines.

The best time to “build trust” is supposedly in between pandemics. Does this imply that more are to come?

People who question the official narrative are conspiracy theorists, pushing deliberate and harmful misinformation.

What matters is having a consistent message.

Trust is important, insofar as it enables one to proceed with their agenda without hurdles. It must be maintained, not for altruistic reasons, but to make future acts easier to sell.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Is it unfair to vilify the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their role in advancing the big pharma agenda and mass vaccinations? Not really, once one looks at the actual money involved.

5. Heidi Larson: LSHTM & VCP Operative

Heidi Larson, who appeared on this talk, is both a Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has long been a recipient of big money from Gates. Of course, this also applies to Imperial College London, and to VIMC, Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • UNICEF
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Facebook
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Do any of the these partners and funders for the Vaccine Confidence Project looks familiar? Many of the names should set off alarms. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t specifically listed, many of the partners are funded by Gates.

Is there any separation between Vaccine Confidence Project and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? Aside from overlap in donors, they have many of the same people

  • Prof. Heidi Larson
  • Dr. Pauline Paterson
  • Valerie Heywood
  • Emilie Karafillakis
  • Fiona Sun
  • Kristen de Graaf
  • Simon Piatek
  • Dr. Leesa Lin
  • Gillian McKay
  • Penda Johm
  • Caroline Marshall

Two separate organizations, but many of the same personnel, donors and partners. And they serve to advance the same goals.

6. Ben Page, Chief Executive Ipsos MORI

Interesting omission from Page. Not only is he in charge of Ipsos MORI, a global research firm, he’s also a Council Member of the World Economic Forum. He has in interesting work history, to put it mildly.

7. Professor Tan Chorh Chuan

Chief Health Scientist and Executive Director, Office for Healthcare Transformation, Ministry of Health, Singapore
.
Professor Tan Chorh Chuan was appointed as the inaugural Chief Health Scientist and concurrently, Executive Director of the new Office for Healthcare Transformation in Singapore’s Ministry of Health with effect from 1 January 2018.

Professor Tan’s concurrent appointments include the Chairman of the Board of the National University Health System; member, Board of Directors of the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and member, Board of Directors of Mandai Park Development.

Professor Tan served as President of the National University of Singapore (NUS) from 2008 to 2017. He held the positions of NUS Provost, then Senior Deputy President from 2004 to 2008. He was former Dean of the NUS Faculty of Medicine and served as the Director of Medical Services, Ministry of Health, from 2000 to 2004, in which capacity he was responsible for leading the public health response to the 2003 SARS epidemic. As the inaugural Chief Executive of the National University Health System in 2008, he brought the NUS Medical and Dental Schools and the National University Hospital under single governance. As NUS president, he oversaw the formation of Yale-NUS College.

This is certainly an interesting mix of people: university professor and propagandist (Larson), a Government Official in Singapore (Chuan), a researcher and pollster (Page), and a journalist (Alrawi).

8. Mustafa Alrawi, Assistant Editor, The National

Alrawi has been in various media outlets across the globe over the last 2 decades. Side note: he is formerly a production assistant in 2000 for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which receives regular funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. This is Psychological Warfare

Nothing in this talk shows any concern that people might be seriously harmed by these experimental vaccines. Instead, the focus is on “pitching” it to the public. Sympathy is feigned, but only for the purposes of learning how other people’s minds work.

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

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

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

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

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

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

3. Important Links

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

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

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

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

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

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

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

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

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

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

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

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

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

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

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

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

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

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

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

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

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

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

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

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

Posted on

CV #19(D): About The “Debate” Between Brian Lilley And Anthony Furey….

Postmedia just put out an article detailing a philosophical “debate” between Brian Lilley and Anthony Furey. Here is the video of the exchange. While commentary is provided below, watch this, and make your own decisions.

1. Lilley/Furey Just Putting On An Act

To address the obvious: it looks like Furey and Lilley are simply performing for the cameras. It seems doubtful that either of them (especially Lilley) believe in what they say. It’s not entirely clear if this is grandstanding for the cameras, or an attempt to “appear” to give different ideas. This may be ego-driven, but could just as easily be more controlled opposition.

2. Lilley Focuses On “Selling” The Idea Too Much

Lilley doesn’t take the default position that any restrictions must be clearly justified. Instead, he goes on about how anti-lockdown activists need to “sell” the idea, or to “move the dial”. He offers nothing in the way of evidence to justify martial law. He only claims that the politics support it.

Lilley claims that the so-called experts the Government parades up in press conferences are convincing the public. He omits that these sessions are scripted, controlled, and questions are pre-approved. Genuine opposition is not allowed.

3. Furey Intentionally Weak On The Lies

Furey seems to accept at face value recent “polls” claiming that the public at large supports having their freedoms stripped away in an arbitrary and open-ended manner. He blames this alleged support on the media not doing a good job of convincing the people otherwise.

However, Furey does little to push the hard questions challenging the official narrative.

  • Computer modelling creates predictions, not evidence
  • Various models have proven to be drastically wrong
  • The virus itself hasn’t been isolated
  • The PCR test was not designed to detect active infection, and as a result, is useless and gives many false positives
  • Masks do nothing, and even the World Health Organization says its evidence is conflicted
  • Countless instances of people dying WITH this virus are bein counted as having died FROM it. Real pandemics don’t need lies to keep it going.
  • The overwhelming majority of people who test positive (which doesn’t equate infection), recover on their own, without any vaccine
  • Bipartisan pharma lobbying has been rampant
  • There is lots of money to be made by groups with a vested interest in perpetuating the situation. This includes: vaccine manufacturers, test kit manufacturers, online retailers, AI companies, cell phone and tracing developers, etc…
  • So-called restrictions have been largely arbitrary, and applied unevenly
  • Social media companies openly collude with Governments
  • The GREAT RESET is now out in the open. If this wasn’t planned out, then it was at least very opportunistic

It’s hard to take such a “debate” seriously, when one side has such overwhelming material to use, but chooses not to. Furey had many very valid and legitimate concerns that could have been addressed, but weren’t. It’s a bit like taking about national debt, but not discussing central banking.

Difficult to imagine Furey hasn’t at least heard of any of the above points, but he seems to have no interest in covering any of it. He seems to be working from a script.

4. Anthony Furey Ignores The Smoking Guns

Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

  • (2001) Dark Winter
  • (2005) Atlantic Storm
  • (2018) Clade X
  • (2019) Event 201

Furey was supposedly debating that lockdowns were unnecessary. But seriously, he couldn’t have mentioned any of the above content? When you can crush your opponent in an argument this easily, why is it not being used? The likely answer, Furey is just going through the motions.

The fact that Theresa Tam mentioned locking up and quarantining people A DECADE ago in that 2010 documentary…. that doesn’t set off any alarms for Furey? What about the Lock Step Narrative? What about all of the “planning scenarios”?

5. 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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

For some real journalism, check out the work on this site.

Posted on

Who’s Pulling Steven Guilbeault’s Strings? (Part 2: Anti-Free Speech, Privacy)

Last year, Steven Guilbeault (rightfully) took a lot of criticism for the recommendation that media outlets be forced to obtain licenses. He later backtracked somewhat, claiming that news outlets would be exempt. Now, he’s back, pushing hate speech laws.

A disclaimer: it’s entirely possible (likely), that there are groups pushing for these laws that are not listed publicly. However, all that is listed is documented information.

Worth noting: the original intent of the bill was on “hate speech”. Sending pornography, or lewd images was just an afterthought. Still, this does raise privacy concerns, not just ones for free speech.

See Part 1 for Guilbeault’s ties to the eco-movement.

To begin with, let’s address the elephant in the room: hate speech laws can, and often are used to silence legitimate concerns and criticisms. Worse, they are applied unevenly. When very different groups with different cultures and value are brought together, how it operates is fair discussion. What will be expected, what compromises will be made, and how to settle differences must be addressed.

Regardless of whether a person prefers a more assimilationist approach, or is more libertarian, hard questions have to be asked. When such questions cannot be asked — because of hate speech laws — it doesn’t erase the concerns, but simply erodes public trust.

Banning valid discussion with false accusations of racism, or false claims of violence, does nothing to advance open discourse. Instead, it’s used to gaslight and prevent necessary discussion.

Is this a call to violence, or to condone violence? Certainly not. But all too often, ideas and violence are wrongly conflated.

1. Hate Crime Hoaxes Undermine Public Trust

Now Toronto Police say the alleged attack on an 11-year-old girl wearing a hijab last week was a hoax. In other words, the hijabi girl and her brother simply made up the story.

We still don’t know enough whether this incident was orchestrated to further entrench the sense of victimhood among Canada’s Muslims or if it was a tale made up by the 11-year-old girl to cover up some other incident.

Khawlah Noman isn’t the first Muslim girl to pull off such a hoax, but she surely must be the youngest to do so.

Another valid question must be asked. Before passing censorship laws to combat hate speech and related crimes, how many incidents actually happened, and how many are hoaxes? Before considering such laws, it’s important to know the full scale of the problem. However, some outlets continue with the narrative, even when hoaxes are exposed.

2. Canadian Parliament On Online Hate

Check this page for information on a Parliamentary study in Canada concerning online hate. Witnesses were called to give more insight into the topic. While there was a lot of reasonable discussion, one problem remains: it’s far too easy to demonize people by CLAIMING that certain topics are hate and violence.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Canadian Human Rights Act and Online Hate, respecting the repealed section 13 of the CHRA and opening the Act for legislative review.
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program, Regulation
Security & Targeted Communities: Advocating for policies to enhance the security and safety of Canadian Muslim communities and other at-risk communities given the rise in hate crimes, including the Security Infrastructure Program; countering white supremacist groups
.
Policies or Program
Anti-racism: Advocating for policy initiatives in the Department of Canadian Heritage related to combating Islamophobia and discrimination, including the updating of Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism (CAPAR); Supporting various programs to promote diversity and inclusion in Canada.
Religion: Advocating for the protection of freedom of religion in Canada and with respect to the reasonable accommodation of religious observances.

One of the groups lobbying Guilbeault is the National Council of Canadian Muslims. They claim that “white supremacists” are causing a hateful environment, and that more diversity and inclusion is needed. Of course, ask how THEY accommodate minorities, and that’s hate speech.

Also noteworthy: Walied Soliman, Erin O’Toole’s Chief of Staff, is a member of the NCCM. He’s on record as supporting their activities.

4. CIJA, Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

Subject Matter Details
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit
–Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream.
-Activities include:
•Collect examples of how antisemitism presents itself in the context of COVID19
•Create website landing page lor campaign to highlight the campaign’s purpose and goals
•Prepare social media calendar for the duration of the campaign
•Prepare Facebook ads, prepare toolkit to distribute to partner organizations to promote the campaign
•Program content for campaign, run Facebook ads, and ensure participation from various cultural groups; and
•Report to government and stakeholders on the outcome of the campaign. The Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP) supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance that will support democracy and social cohesion in Canada in a digital world by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats to our country’s democracy and social cohesion.
-Provide economic support for the charitable and not-for-profit sector through a direct granting program. Donations from Canadians should be incentivized through a temporary enhancement of the charitable giving tax credit, or through a donor matching program, whereby the government matches donations from Canadians.
-Public Security threats to the safety and security of the Jewish community of Canada and the extension of funding of capital costs and staff training for security of communities at risk
-The project ‘United Against Online Hate’ aims to develop a national coalition with numerous targeted communities to actively combat online hate, following recommendations from the study conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have been granted $141,000 for the government’s current fiscal year (ending March 31 2021). We were also awarded $31,800 for the year April 1 2021 to March 31 2022.

The page on lobbying information is very long, but well worth a read. A lot of effort has clearly gone into writing and updating this.

5. Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting

Subject Matter Details
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Canadian Heritage Committee study of online hate and illegal content and promised legislation
Possible amendment to Section 19 of the Income Tax Act respecting the deductibility of digital advertising on non-Canadian platforms
Review of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts with respect to the promotion of Canadian culture and democracy.
.
Policies or Program, Regulation
Broadcasting policy: regulation, funding, licensing, Canadian programming, media concentration and restrictions on foreign ownership, equal enforcement of the Broadcasting Act, application of the Broadcasting Act to non-traditional media, support for public broadcasting, independence of CBC/Radio Canada and other related governance concerns, protecting Canadian content on air and online.

This lobbying actually covers a number of topics, but online hate is one of them.

6. YWCA, Others Get Federal Grants

October 20, 2020 – Toronto, Ontario
.
The Government of Canada is committed to taking action against online hate and preventing the promotion of racism and violence. Today, the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Honourable Bill Blair, announced $759,762 to YWCA Canada for their project Block Hate: Building Resilience against Online Hate Speech.

The four-year project will examine hate speech trends across Canada and work with experts to develop online tools and digital literacy training for young Canadians aged 14 to 30 across ten communities.

The YWCA will bring together partners from digital industry, civil society, government, and academia to better understand online hate in Canada, support those targeted by hate speech, inform technical solutions to online hate, hate crime, and radicalization to violence, and increase community resilience.

The YWCA received a grant from the Federal Government, but it is hardly alone in that. Fighting online hate and hate speech appears to be a growth industry.

One also has to ask how such hate speech regulations would be enforced? What information would internet providers, or cell phone companies have to provide? What would the process and limits for that be? What privacy protections would be in place?

7. Vic Toews, Online Privacy, Bill C-30

Since the proposal did mention punishing of sharing images (even as an afterthought), let’s address this. It was in 2012 that “Conservative” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews tried to bring in Bill C-30, which could force online providers to hand over private information without a warrant. Toews gaslighted privacy concerns as people “siding with the child pornographers”. While the Bill died in 1st Reading, could something like this happen again?

8. What Are Impacts On Free Speech? Privacy?

What will this bill look like, and what are the impacts? Until the legislation is tabled, we won’t know for sure. Even then, amendments are quite likely, as are court challenges.

This shouldn’t have to be repeated, but it is. Being critical of “hate speech” for being overreaching does not equate to supporting hate or violence. All too often, false accusations of racism, hate and bigotry are used to silence legitimate concerns and questions.

Vic Toews vilified critics of warrantless searches as “pedophile sympathizers”. Could this iteration lead to critics being smeared as “Nazi supporters”? Will a provision for warrantless searches be slipped in?

It’s also possible that such legislation will be scrapped altogether. After all, Guilbeault supported mandatory media licensing only last year, but backed down under heavy pressure. This is an important story to keep an eye on.

https://twitter.com/s_guilbeault/status/1351219226711912454
https://twitter.com/s_guilbeault/status/1351219225302618117
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Canadian Parliament Discusses Online Hate
(Audio) Testimony Into Online Hate
Toronto Sun On Hate Crime Hoax
National Post Shrugs Off Hate Crime Hoax
National Council Of Canadian Muslims Lobbying
Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Lobbying
Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting Lobbying
YWCA Receives $760,000 Anti-Hate Grant
Various Initiatives/Grants From Ottawa In Recent Years
Bill C-30, Vic Toews, Online Privacy, Pornography

Posted on

Media Subsidies To Counter Online “Misinformation”, Groups Led By Political Operatives

In July 2019, the Federal Government announced it would be funding many initiatives to counter “online disinformation”. This is 6 months PRIOR to the alleged pandemic that took place. Again, this was set up IN ADVANCE of 2020. And it’s strange just how many of the leaders of these groups have political connections.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. MSM in Canada (and elsewhere), has been largely obedient to the official stories since they are subsidized to do so, 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. Important Links

Press Release: Gov’t Funds “Online Disinformation” Initiatives In 2019
https://archive.is/cVTQ0
Groups Receiving Tax Dollars In “Disinfo” Initiatives
https://archive.is/VS3Fm
Emergency Funds Available $500M (CV Funds)
https://archive.is/F9P5F
Canada’s International Engagement Strategy
https://archive.is/zR6yp
Public Policy Forum (Democracy)
https://archive.is/lQw4j
Peter Donolo’s LinkedIn Profile
https://archive.is/DXsbT
Kathleen Monk’s LinkedIn Profile
Robert Asselin’s LinkedIn Page
Elizabeth Dubois’ LinkedIn Page
Rachel Curran’s LinkedIn Page
Francis LeBlanc’s LinkedIn Page
Megan Beretta’s LinkedIn Page
Amy Giroux’s LinkedIn Page
Terrence Clifford’s LinkedIn Page
News Media Canada Governance

3. Anti-Disinfo Just Another Gov’t Program

News release
GATINEAU, July 2, 2019
.
A strong democracy relies on Canadians having access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information so that they can form opinions, hold governments and individuals to account, and participate in public conversations.

The Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions, today announced several citizen-focused activities that will build citizens’ critical thinking and preparedness against online disinformation, and other online harms. She made this announcement on behalf of the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism. This announcement is part of the Government of Canada’s plan to safeguard our democratic processes from threats of interference as we approach the 2019 General Election.

On January 30, Minister Gould announced funding of $7 million for citizen-focused activities under Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative to support eligible organizations using four existing programs: the Canada History Fund, Youth Take Charge, Exchanges Canada and the Canada Periodical Fund. The Initiative promotes civic, news and digital media literacy through third-party educational activities and programming to help citizens become resilient against online harms.

Strengthening Canadians’ resilience to online disinformation
.
Canadian Heritage will also invest $19.4 million over four years in a new Digital Citizen Research Program to help Canadians understand online disinformation and its impact on Canadian society, and to build the evidence base that will be used to identify possible actions and future policy-making in this space. This investment will also enable Canada to take part in international multi-stakeholder engagement aimed at building consensus and developing guiding principles on diversity of content online to strengthen citizen resilience to online disinformation.

Officially, this program against “disinformation” was set in place with the 2019 election in mind. However, that seems strange, given the election itself was just 4 months away.

That said, the timing lines up pretty well if, let’s say, a pandemic were to break out, and Canadians started questioning how real it was.

It’s worth pointing out that this is by no means the first act of financial support the Government (or, really, taxpayers), had shelled out for.

4. Groups That Are Receiving The Money

GROUP YEAR AMOUNT
Agence Science-Presse 2019-2020 $129,345
Apathy is Boring 2018-2019 $100,000
Apathy is Boring 2019-2020 $340,000
Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada 2019-2020 $460,000
Canadian News Media Association 2019-2020 $484,300
CIVIX 2018-2019 $275,000
CIVIX 2019-2020 $400,000
Encounters with Canada 2018-2019 $100,000
Quebec Professional Journalists 2019-2020 $202,570
Global Vision 2019-2020 $260,000
Historica Canada 2019-2020 $250,000
Institute for Canadian Citizenship 2019-2020 $250,000
Journalists for Human Rights 2019-2020 $250,691
Magazines Canada 2019-2020 $63,000
McGill University 2019-2020 $1,196,205
MediaSmarts 2019-2020 $650,000
New Canadian Media 2019-2020 $66,517
Ryerson University 2019-2020 $290,250
Samara Centre for Democracy 2019-2020 $59,200
Sask Weekly Newspapers Ass’n 2019-2020 $70,055
Simon Fraser University 2019-2020 $175,000
Vubble Inc. Unboxed project 2019-2020 $299,000

So, who’s actually getting the money. Here are some of the groups listed by the Canadian Government, whose goals are to counter online “disinformation”.

In later sections, let’s take a look at who is actually running some of these organizations. The results, and the connections, may be quite surprising.

5. Emergency Support Fund For Organizations

On May 8, 2020, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the details of a new COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations. The $500 million Emergency Support Fund provides additional temporary relief to support cultural, heritage and sport organizations and help them plan for the future. The Fund will help maintain jobs and support business continuity for organizations whose viability has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ottawa announced in the Spring of 2020 that it would help fund media outlets that had been harmed by this “pandemic”. That’s nice: crash the economy, and then hand out money with the expectation of favourable coverage.

6. International Engagement Strategy

  • International meeting at Stanford University, California
  • Canada-France joint declaration
  • International meeting in Ottawa

The Canadian Government’s strategy to control the media is not limited to being within the borders. There are a number of international initiatives that are going on as well.

7. Public Policy Forum

The Digital Democracy Project is a multi-year project to analyze and respond to the increasing amounts of disinformation and hate in the digital public sphere. It will monitor digital and social media in real time, coordinate with international research and policy development projects, and develop public policy responses to counter these threats to democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Public Policy Forum President & CEO Edward Greenspon and recently appointed Max Bell School of Public Policy professor Taylor Owen announced the launch of a multi-year project to analyze and respond to the increasing amounts of disinformation and hate in the digital public sphere.

The Digital Democracy Project (DDP) will commission research and journalism to gain a greater understanding of how disinformation is growing in the digital ecosystem. It will monitor digital and social media in real time, coordinate with international research and policy development projects, and develop public policy responses to counter these threats to democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Interesting how subjective the terms “hate” and “misinformation” can be. In fact, the meanings of these words can — and often are — misconstrued in order to shut down legitimate discussion on important topics. Will this research just be more research into how to go about doing it?

8. Peter Donolo: Longtime Liberal Strategist

Peter Donolo is a longtime Liberal operative. He was Chretien’s Communications Director, he worked in the Office of the Official Opposition for Michael Ignatieff, and other political roles. Ignatieff, incidently, is now a Vice-President of Soros’ Open Society Group.

Donolo is also now a Board Member at CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights. He has ties to the Liberals, who are also funding various initiatives to counter misinformation.

9. Kathleen Monk: Longtime NDP Operative

Kathleen Monk was involved with the Federal NDP (under Jack Layton), and is part of the Broadbent Institute – named after ex-NDP Leader Ed Broadbent.

She is now a Board Member at CIVIX.

10. Robert Asselin: Ex-Trudeau Operative

Robert Asselin worked in the Ministry of Finance from November 2015 to November 2017, under Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau. He also worked at Blackberry.

Currently, he is a Board Member of CIVIX.

11. Elizabeth Dubois: Assistant To Liberal MP

>

Elizabeth Dubois was an assistant for Diane Hall Findley, who was a Member of Parliament. She also worked as a climate change program manager.

Now, Dubois is a Board Member at CIVIX.

12. Rachel Curran: Harper Operative

Rachel Curran is a public policy manager at Facebook Canada. She also spent years in the Office of the Prime Minister, when Harper was in office. She’s part of CIVIX now.

13. Francis LeBlanc: Ex-Liberal MP

Francis LeBlanc is a former Liberal M.P., and held various Government roles after that. He is now Board Member at CIVIX.

By the way, and relation to Dominic LeBlanc, head of the Privy Council? He previously proposed passing laws to combat “misinformation” related to coronavirus.

14. Megan Beretta: Ties To Several Groups

Megan Beretta has worked for CIVIX, Institute for Canadian Citizenship, Canadian Digital Service, and studied at Oxford Internet Institute.

15. Giroux, Clifford: Ex-Mulroney Operatives

Amy Giroux, who is now a Director Global Vision, was a political attache for Brian Mulroney’s Government from 1988 until 1993. Terrence Clifford, the Founder, was a Member of Parliament for Mulroney.

16. News Media Canada On Disinformation

News Media Canada will design, develop and promote a public awareness program entitled “SPOT Fake News Online”. The project will provide Canadians of all ages with straightforward tools to encourage them to critically assess digital media and identify misleading or defamatory disinformation

News Media Canada is supposed to be developing a program to combat misinformation online. Problem is, the Directors all come from mainstream outlets, who are heavily subsidized by the Government, or rather, taxpayers. There is a conflict of interest in claiming to be the leader in truth seeking.

17. Politics Mixing With Media Fact Checking

The examples above are not exhaustive, but they do show an interesting pattern: many of these taxpayer funded groups who are supposed to fight “misinformation” are run by people with political ties. This seems to be an obvious conflict of interest.

Yes, it’s an overused cliche, but this is a case of putting the fox in charge of monitoring the hen house.

Posted on

Brian Lilley Mentions Global Canada Piece On Lockdowns, Omits Group Is Gates Funded

A group called Global Canada is proposing extremely strict lockdowns (a.k.a. martial law), in Canada, for a limited time. At least they claim it will be a limited time. Of course, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we will get to their paper soon enough.

And Brian Lilley, a so-called “journalist” with the Toronto Sun, can’t be bothered to do even a small amount of research on this group.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Brian Lilley’s Toronto Star Article On Proposed Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Complete Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Total Lockdown
https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1346454136640974850
https://global-canada.org/
https://global-canada.org/supporters/
https://global-canada.org/team/
https://archive.is/JzFdL
https://archive.is/SETfE
https://archive.is/hGLwi
http://www.18millionwomen.ca/
Family Planning Initiative Calls For Money

3. Conservative Inc.’s Brian Lilley Reports

While I agree that they have diagnosed several problems with our current system correctly, the prescription isn’t one I can get wholly behind.

The group smartly says we do need effective border controls, including testing of air travelers and proper quarantine methods.

The group even suggests making truckers and other essential workers who cross the Canada-US land border a priority group for vaccinations to prevent them from becoming new infection vectors.

What I have trouble with is the idea of another four-to-six week lockdown.

The plan is to invoke a harsh lockdown for four to six weeks, then gradually relax restrictions as cases fall by 17-25% per week until we reach a benchmark of one new case per day per one million of population.

How long that would take would vary greatly by province.

For Ontario and Alberta, that’s at least four to six months, while in Manitoba the effort would take two months, possibly more.

I don’t expect everything to open back up tomorrow, or for life to get back to normal anytime soon.

Yet I doubt many politicians have the desire to sell the public on this plan, of “just one more short lockdown” — and given the past week and how the political class have acted, I doubt very much the public wants to hear it.

From the looks of the article, Lilley doesn’t seem to take any issue (on principle), of forcibly locking down Canada for months. He just seems mildly skeptical that it would be as effective as needed.

Keep in mind, Lilley takes the perspective that we should be grateful it’s Doug Ford imposing lockdowns in Ontario, as others would surely be worse. Whether by accident or by design, Lilley only provides the most tame and meek efforts at holding the Government accountable. What else is he not reporting about this group that calls for more lockdowns?

4. Who Supports This NGO: Global Canada?

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
  • AIMIA
  • CIGI
  • Competia
  • ZED

Yes, the supporters of Global Canada include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is heavily involved in the pharmaceutical push. Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec is a large investment firm. So is AIMIA.

It would have been nice if Brian Lilley included this is his article. He linked the original paper.

5. Robert Greenhill Chairs Global Canada

Robert Greenhill
Executive Chairman, Global Canada
.
With a strong interest in global issues, Robert Greenhill has combined a career in international business with a commitment to public policy.
.
Robert Greenhill is Executive Chairman of the Global Canada Initiative. Previous roles include Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, Deputy Minister and President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and President and Chief Operating Officer of the International Group of Bombardier Inc. Robert started his career with McKinsey & Company.
.
Robert has a BA from the University of Alberta, MA from the London School of Economics, and MBA from INSEAD

Global Canada is chaired by a former Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, an organization pushing lockdowns, and which our politicians have ties to. Greenhill also has ties to Bombardier and McKinsey & Company.

Surely this is worth mentioning by the Toronto Sun. One of their roles is holding Government accountable for the things that they do, right?

Michael McAdoo Bio
Senior Consultant, The Boston Consulting Group
.
Michael is a Senior Advisor with the Global Advantage practice area of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), where he specializes in international trade issues and manufacturing. He brings over twenty-five years of experience at the intersection of business strategy, international geopolitics, public policy, and deep expertise in international trade issues and in cross-cultural operations management.
.
Prior to his current role, Michael was an Executive Vice president with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC). From 2001-2014 he held a series of senior executive positons with Bombardier. Prior to Bombardier, he was a Principal with BCG (Toronto/Monterrey).
.
Michael holds Masters degrees in International Relations and Journalism from Columbia University, and received his undergraduate education at Queen’s University and Harvard. He has lived and worked in all three NAFTA countries, and is fluent in French and Spanish.

Quite the list of connections here:

  • Bain & Company
  • Bell Canada
  • Bombardier
  • Canadian International Development Agency
  • Boston Consulting Group
  • Business Development Bank of Canada
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Pfizer
  • Privy Council of Canada
  • UN Global Compact
  • World Economic Forum

6. Quotes From The Global Canada Proposal

Canada is relatively well positioned to achieve zero COVID transmission. We are surrounded by ocean on 3 sides with a comparatively small population, engaged citizenry, strong institutions, a federal system of government, mid-sized cities similar to Sydney or Melbourne, and several domestic examples of zero COVID success.

Canada’s situation is essentially the same as Australia’s—with the addition of one major land border. By vaccinating the 200 thousand truckers that regularly cross the border and fully implementing other proven measures, Canada can seal off the U.S.-Canada border to the COVID virus while allowing essential trade to continue unimpeded.

Achieving zero transmission is feasible in Canada. Indeed, Canada may have inadvertently thrown away its shot to get to zero once already this summer.

With rising COVID cases and hospitalizations, difficult decisions have to be made. If the wrong decisions are made, we will face potential shutdowns again in 3 months. The time is right to determine whether going for zero is a superior strategy for Canada. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

Conclusion: We Have a Choice
Tough decisions will be necessary across Canada over the next few weeks. Canadians will doubtless be asked to make significant additional sacrifices. It is critical that these decisions and sacrifices are made with the right strategy in mind.

The TANZANC strategy of aggressive suppression is a viable option for Canada. Given the critical challenges to our present approach, the TANZANC model should be assessed and debated.

It may be that a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the TANZANC model is not a better strategy. If, however, the TANZANC model is right for Canada, or for certain provinces, we should act on it now. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

The conclusion from this report is that Canada has a choice. Living with COVID in the world is reality. Living with COVID in our communities is a choice.
Is it the right choice?

This paper brings up the same old talking points about lockdowns (martial law) being necessary in order to stop people from getting infected. In short, we still have problems because restrictions haven’t been harsh enough.

No mention of the bogus science behind this, such as the virus not isolated, or PCR tests not designed for this. No mention that people overwhelmingly recover, or that restrictions have been applied in an arbitrary and inconsistent matter.

The group regularly talks about borders. But instead of closing the borders off completely, the proposal is to vaccinate everyone coming in. What could possibly go wrong.

7. Global Canada And 18MillionWomen

One area that was identified in our brainstorming with Canadian leaders was renewed Canadian leadership on family planning and reproductive health and rights. Over the past year Global Canada worked with other Canadian civil society actors to convene a gathering of global experts on reproductive health. The recommendations from this gathering (summarized at www.18millionwomen.ca) played an important role in Canada’s 650M announcement to support women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights announced in March, 2017. Global Canada will be exploring other “proof point” opportunities with the potential of significant global impact.

The Family Planning Initiative has put out a call for Canada to spend at least $500 million each year for 10 years on what it calls sexual and reproductive health and rights. Yes, this would amount to Canada helping to finance genocide abroad by paying for abortions in the 3rd World. Global Canada is one of the groups that is involved in helping push that along.

Nothing says a commitment to saving lives quite like ensuring that there are a lot less of them around.