Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.

(1) https://www.sfgmc.org/
(2) https://www.sfgmc.org/press-releases-1/2021/7/9/statement-from-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-july-9-2021
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfxtSbh6Do

Posted on

Some Of The Gates Foundation Money Coming Into Canadian Universities

This should have been addressed sooner, but here we are. Money corrupts. And large donations to colleges and universities are no different. Some well known schools in Canada have been receiving large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years.

Also noteworthy: a grant of nearly $20,000 to the BC Provincial Health Services Authority in September 2016. That should raise a few eyebrows. Then again, the BCPHSA is a registered charity, and isn’t really controlled by the Government.

SCHOOL DATE AMOUNT
Athabasca University December 2010 $10,000
Carleton University September 2013 $200,100
Carleton University July 2015 $200,000
Carleton University October 2016 $600,000
Carleton University November 2018 $287,769
Carleton University December 2020 $150,000
Queen’s University (Kingston) April 2000 $765,000
Queen’s University (Kingston) September 2017 $209,913
McGill University August 2008 $99,350
McGill University October 2008 $100,000
McGill University January 2011 $776,797
McGill University February 2012 $100,000
McGill University June 2012 $1,190,749
McGill University November 2012 $1,488,773
McGill University October 2013 $100,000
McGill University October 2013 $2,910,578
McGill University November 2013 $2,351,021
McGill University April 2014 $100,000
McGill University October 2014 $196,305
McGill University October 2015 $100,000
McGill University August 2017 $652,488
McGill University September 2017 $50,000
McGill University March 2019 $200,000
McGill University July 2019 $629,970
McGill University October 2019 $524,285
McGill University April 2020 $839,644
McGill University September 2020 $1,227,508
McMaster University June 2015 $6,616,077
McMaster University October 2018 $1,993,992
McMaster University November 2019 $12,392,744
Simon Fraser University November 2010 $100,000
Simon Fraser University June 2020 $1,638,614
University Health Network March 2008 $2,992,320
University Health Network July 2012 $374,713
University of Alberta January 2012 $374,493
University of Alberta April 2012 $100,000
University of Alberta April 2012 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2009 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2010 $25,905,046
University of British Columbia April 2011 $50,000
University of British Columbia October 2011 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2011 $50,000
University of British Columbia February 2012 $75,000
University of British Columbia January 2015 $331,926
University of British Columbia October 2015 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2015 $10,517,000
University of British Columbia April 2017 $248,118
University of British Columbia May 2017 $575,000
University of British Columbia May 2018 $115,002
University of Calgary April 2011 $100,000
University of Calgary March 2012 $100,000
University of Calgary October 2017 $320,729
University of Manitoba March 2002 $1,000,000
University of Manitoba December 2003 $23,781,310
University of Manitoba July 2005 $6,632,459
University of Manitoba September 2005 $5,875,500
University of Manitoba January 2006 $727,289
University of Manitoba July 2006 $25,000
University of Manitoba February 2007 $3,576,104
University of Manitoba December 2008 $19,964,619
University of Manitoba November 2009 $100,000
University of Manitoba November 2009 $9,395,356
University of Manitoba November 2011 $6,979,956
University of Manitoba November 2013 $45,240,209
University of Manitoba July 2014 $1,599,915
University of Manitoba November 2014 $5,115,536
University of Manitoba November 2015 $2,094,160
University of Manitoba November 2015 $3,600,884
University of Manitoba November 2015 $12,826,276
University of Manitoba December 2015 $108,108
University of Manitoba November 2016 $32,252,452
University of Manitoba November 2016 $1,496,747
University of Manitoba January 2017 $3,053,064
University of Manitoba May 2018 $299,920
University of Manitoba November 2018 $1,999,776
University of Manitoba November 2019 $1,677,745
University of Manitoba November 2019 $5,045,139
University of Manitoba April 2020 $200,000
University of Manitoba April 2020 $2,571,089
University of Manitoba April 2020 $6,483,054
University of Manitoba July 2020 $800,400
University of Manitoba November 2020 $2,038,335
University of Manitoba November 2020 $2,195,780
University of Manitoba December 2020 $116,323
University of Manitoba December 2020 $986,439
University of Manitoba June 2021 $87,078,762
University of Ottawa April 2011 $100,000
University of Ottawa April 2016 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan July 2005 $4,510,133
University of Saskatchewan October 2008 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan May 2010 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan September 2020 $10,000
University of Toronto December 2004 $78,750
University of Toronto December 2005 $10,071,457
University of Toronto October 2008 $100,000
University of Toronto June 2011 $439,585
University of Toronto September 2011 $100,000
University of Toronto October 2012 $2,617,245
University of Toronto November 2012 $100,000
University of Toronto August 2014 $5,019,295
University of Toronto April 2015 $100,000
University of Toronto April 2016 $100,000
University of Toronto October 2016 $344,020
University of Toronto October 2017 $2,715,600
University of Toronto November 2019 $127,685
University of Toronto November 2020 $1,902,266
University of Victoria October 2008 $100,000
University of Waterloo October 2007 $12,500,000
University of Waterloo February 2018 $90,000
University of Waterloo November 2018 $236,244
Wilfrid Laurier University July 2016 $255,605
World Uni Service of Canada April 2007 $4,059,901
World Uni Service of Canada October 2010 $3,995,720
World Uni Service of Canada September 2012 $1,605,835
World Uni Service of Canada October 2012 $2,134,386
World Uni Service of Canada May 2014 $331,780

In what may be a surprise to many, it seems that the University of Manitoba comes out on top when it comes to receiving money from Gates.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695

Remember: always be following the money.

(1) https://www.gatesfoundation.org
(2) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=canada%20university#jump-nav-anchor0
(3) https://archive.is/4GwFa
(4) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(5) gates.foundation.taxes.2016
(6) gates.foundation.taxes.2017
(7) gates.foundation.taxes.2018
(8) gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Posted on

Some Thoughts On Why Ontario Is Still Closed, While Other Provinces Are Fully Open

Why is Ontario still completely shut down? Why is there more freedom pretty much everywhere else in North America? Perhaps these bits of information will shine some light on that problem.

In an earlier piece, it was shown that Sarah Letersky and Patrick Harris lobbied the Ontario Government on behalf of AstraZeneca. They were recently at it again, lobbying on behalf of Janssen in June, 2021.

Letersky helped install Ford into power in June 2018, and remained in that Government for a period afterwards. Now, she lobbies that same Government. Quite the conflict of interest.

And as repeated ad nauseum, these “vaccines” are not approved by Health Canada, but instead, have interim authorization under an emergency order. Not at all the same thing. In fact, it’s only legal to distribute because of the emergency declaration.

Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?
.
Employment Standards Act: removal of pharmacist exemptions in ESA for improved labour standards. Insurance Act: prohibit restrictive preferred provider networks to protect patient choice in providers. Ontario Drug Benefit Act: sustainable pharmacy funding. Drug Interchangeability & Dispensing Fee Act: advocacy on dispensing fees. Pharmacy Act: scope of practice for pharmacists. Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act: to obtain data from the Narcotic Monitoring System. Health Sector Payment Transparency Act: fair reporting protocols. Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act: redefinition of where pharmacists can practice. Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act: for point-of-care and other forms of diagnostic test including for COVID19, and to order/receive lab test results for medication monitoring. Smoke Free Ontario Act: for pharmacy dispensing of medical cannabis. Cannabis Act: for pharmacy dispensing of medical cannabis. Public Hospitals Act: to enable full scope of pharmacist/technician practice. Long Term Care Homes Act: alignment of pharmacy funding with required services to be performed under the act. Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act: for the provision of government-supplied PPE for all front-line pharmacy professionals.

The Ontario Pharmacists Association, much like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, is subsidized by taxpayers in order to keep its operations going. The OPA has also been involved with Bill 160 and Bill 132, helping to erode transparency among pharmaceutical companies.

Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?
.
Seeking legislation, regulation, and policies related to Ontario’s economic competitiveness and prosperity of our membership and their communities. Issues around COVID-19 and advocacy on the impact on Ontario businesses across the province, particularly on supports for business & vaccine & rapid test distribution. Issues surrounding cannabis and advocating for the industry’s growth across the province. Issues surrounding a competitive tax and regulatory environment including pursuing a simplified tax system and improve transparency in regulation. Issues around regional economic development – removal of inter-provincial trade barriers. Issues regarding modernizing energy and infrastructure (specifically broadband infrastructure investment). Issues concerning health care sustainability such as direct and indirect support for research and development as well as the path to economic recovery with regard to COVID-19. Issues relating to a skilled workforce such addressing the skills mismatch, reinventing employment and training services, and ensuring the apprenticeship system becomes more flexible. Issues related economic competitiveness with Ontario’s agri-food sector, leveraging Ontario’s innovation advantage and collaborate with the private sector to fully leverage Ontario’s competitive advantages. Issues related to fiscal position of the province. Issues related to supporting Ontario’s competitive advantage including agri-food, immigration tourism, and lowing electricity rates through investment in sustainable energy infrastructure.

Now, this could just be poor wording, but the Ontario Chamber of Commerce doesn’t actually say that they want the Province reopened. They seem to be pushing for support for businesses forced to be closed.

Of course, it doesn’t help that Rocco Rossi is the head of the Chamber of Commerce. He is a former Head of the Liberal Party of Canada, a former Mayoral Candidate in Toronto, and ran as Candidate for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Rossi is a great example of politics being too close with lobbyists.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses supposedly stands up for the rights of independents, as the name implies. However, it seems to do little beyond parroting official Government tallies.

Unfortunately, Dan Kelly, who runs the CFIB, is more content to virtue signal about taking his own experimental injections, and doing it to his MINOR children.

Walmart is once again lobbying Ford’s Government. Their stated goal: “Lobbying for regulation changes to allow pharmacists to have expanded scope of practice.” Of course, their business interests have grown considerably as of late, since they are considered essential, while so many are not.

See this earlier work on lobbying by big businesses, and how airline lobbying may have impacted inter-Provincial border closures.

Another area that has picked up is the delivery and rideshare industry. One such company is Facedrive, which uses lobbyists tied to the Ontario and Federal Conservative Parties. See Prabhu and Dunlop.

Just a thought, but Facedrive may be contributing to why “conservative” politicians remain so pro-lockdown. It’s good for their bottom line.

Loop Insights Inc. is described as “a Vancouver-based Internet of Things (“IoT”) technology company that delivers transformative artificial intelligence (“AI”) automated marketing, contact tracing, and contactless solutions to the brick and mortar space.” It should come as no surprise that the people lobbying also have lengthy political ties.

So, why is Ontario mostly still shut down? Wild idea, but maybe there are certain people who have financial incentives to keep it that way.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://rubiconstrategy.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-letersky/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-harris-69348726/
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fabienpaquette/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-paquette-526b0721/
(7) https://twitter.com/CFIB/status/1402405151483248645
(8) https://twitter.com/BNNBloomberg/status/1400170795339497482
(9) https://twitter.com/canadabusiness/status/1399399075640922112
(10) https://twitter.com/CFIB/status/1395133016423505923
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/roccorossi/
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(13) https://archive.is/WiJc9
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/vivek-prabhu-63850120/
(15) https://www.facedrive.com/
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/adria-minsky-b8ba9277/
(17) https://archive.is/7yd7R
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carysbaker/
(19) https://archive.is/4fZO3

Posted on

Counter Intelligence Firms To Influence Elections (Canada And Abroad), Registered As Charities

This is a follow-up to an earlier article. Various groups, which claim to be fighting “misinformation” are actually run by political operatives in Canada. Some of the grants that Canadian taxpayers shell out are also listed. The previous piece will provide a lot of background.

Now the question remains: what do their finances look like? Since many of these groups are in fact registered charities, this information is freely available.

The description as “counter intelligence” is fitting here. While claiming to promote the idea of fairness and openness in the electoral process, these companies won’t ever give the full picture. They’ll never address topics like central banking, the climate change hoax, the “pandemic” psy-op, or many hard questions. In fact, some of these groups run “disinformation” campaigns to prevent the truth about CV from getting out.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines counter intelligence as: “secret action taken by a country to prevent another country from discovering its military, industrial, or political secrets”. However, instead of a struggle between 2 countries, it’s one between government and its people.

Lenin’s famous quote applies here: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Ongoing programs:
ADVANCING EDUCATION BY INCREASING CANADIAN YOUTH AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CANADIAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THROUGH THE USE OF MULTIMEDIA, ART, FILM, TV, INTERNET PROJECT, WRITTEN MATERIALS, SEMINARS, LECTURES.

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $5,000.00 (0.36%)
Non-receipted donations $14,580.00 (1.06%)
Gifts from other registered charities $220,520.00 (15.96%)
Government funding $1,064,684.00 (77.06%)
All other revenue $76,923.00 (5.57%)
Total revenue: $1,381,707.00

Charitable programs $1,174,140.00 (86.07%)
Management and administration $190,027.00 (13.93%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,364,167.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $30,200.00 (1.35%)
Non-receipted donations $17,083.00 (0.76%)
Gifts from other registered charities $265,000.00 (11.86%)
Government funding $1,724,916.00 (77.21%)
All other revenue $196,872.00 (8.81%)
Total revenue: $2,234,071.00

Charitable programs $1,855,731.00 (88.87%)
Management and administration $232,460.00 (11.13%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,088,191.00

The Apathy Is Boring Project claims to try to increase public participation in elections by producing educational content on how the process works.

Ongoing programs:
CIVIX IS A CIVIC EDUCATION CHARITY DEDICATED TO BUILDING THE HABITS OF ACTIVE AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP AMOUNG YOUTH. STUDENT VOTE IS THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAM OF CIVIX. COINCIDING WITH OFFICIAL ELECTION PERIODS, STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, DISCUSS RELEVANT ISSUES AND CAST BALLOTS FOR THE OFFICIAL ELECTION CANDIDATES. CIVIX ALSO OFFERS OTHER INITIATIVES BETWEEN ELECTIONS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT BUDGET CONSULTATIONS FOR YOUTH (STUDENT BUDGET CONSTULATION), COODINATED VISITS BETWEEN STUDENTS AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (REP DAY), AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS (DEMOCRACY BOOTCAMP) AND DIGITAL MEDIAL LITERACY THAT AIMS TO HELP STUDENTS DEVELOP THE SKILLS AND HABITS TO BE CRITICAL CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION.
.
New programs:
CIVIX EXPANDED ITS PROGRAMMING TO COLOMBIA.

[2018 tax information]
Receipted donations $51,570.00 (2.31%)
Non-receipted donations $83,463.00 (3.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $550,846.00 (24.70%)
Government funding $1,536,915.00 (68.91%)
All other revenue $7,393.00 (0.33%)
Total revenue: $2,230,187.00

Charitable programs $2,429,729.00 (92.06%)
Management and administration $140,741.00 (5.33%)
Fundraising $68,780.00 (2.61%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,639,250.00

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $25,000.00 (0.49%)
Non-receipted donations $85,822.00 (1.67%)
Gifts from other registered charities $831,491.00 (16.16%)
Government funding $3,483,769.00 (67.70%)
All other revenue $719,631.00 (13.99%)
Total revenue: $5,145,713.00

Charitable programs $4,691,097.00 (94.81%)
Management and administration $162,708.00 (3.29%)
Fundraising $93,850.00 (1.90%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,947,655.00

CIVIX is a registered charity in Canada that claims to promote democracy in locally. Apparently, it’s also involved with elections in Colombia as well. Glad to know that public money is used to meddle with another country’s leadership.

Ongoing programs:
ICC HOSTS CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE COMMUNITY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ARE A CELEBRATION OF CANADA’S NEWEST CITIZENS AND OFFER UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO REFLECT ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ACTIVE AND ENGAGED CITIZENS. CANOO IS A MOBILE APP THAT PROVIDES FREE ADMISSION FOR NEW CANADIAN CITIZENS TO MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES, ART GALLERIES, PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES ACROSS CANADA. THE APP OFFERS FREE ADMISSION FOR EVERY NEW CITIZEN AND UP TO 4 CHILDREN DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THE CANOO APP IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE APPLE STORE AND GOOGLE PLAY. 6 DEGREES IS A GLOBAL FORUM THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND CREATE CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR AND POLICY. IT IS ABOUT INCLUSION, CONNECTION, ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION, ENGAGEMENT AND THE POWER THAT COMES FROM BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO OPEN HEARTS AND CHANGE MINDS.
.
New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
2 countries
.
GERMANY
MEXICO

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $238,781.00 (4.57%)
Non-receipted donations $1,268,590.00 (24.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $3,553,256.00 (68.06%)
All other revenue $160,196.00 (3.07%)
Total revenue: $5,220,823.00

Charitable programs $4,595,568.00 (89.02%)
Management and administration $386,970.00 (7.50%)
Fundraising $180,044.00 (3.49%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,162,582.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $208,421.00 (7.00%)
Non-receipted donations $809,716.00 (27.20%)
Gifts from other registered charities $6,962.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $1,840,232.00 (61.81%)
All other revenue $112,074.00 (3.76%)
Total revenue: $2,977,405.00

Charitable programs $3,478,136.00 (86.56%)
Management and administration $371,785.00 (9.25%)
Fundraising $168,425.00 (4.19%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,018,346.00

Institute for Canadian Citizenship was started up by Adrian Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada. While claiming to promote citizenship for new Canadians, the NGO is active in gaslighting with claims of racism, and promoting the disinformation narrative. In short, it functions like a media arm of the Federal Government, while pretending to be neutral.

Programs and activities:
.
Ongoing programs:
Educate African journalists about human rights; Educate African public about human rights via media; Award journalists for excellent human rights reporting; Educate Canadian students about human rights; Educate Canadian Aboriginal journalists about human rights; Educate Canadian public about human rights through media; Educate Jordanian journalists about human rights; Educate Syrian journalists about human rights.

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
11 countries

  • CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  • KENYA
  • JORDAN
  • SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
  • TUNISIA
  • MALI
  • IRAQ
  • YEMEN
  • MAURITANIA
  • UGANDA
  • SOUTH SUDAN

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $155,295.00 (5.29%)
Non-receipted donations $247,342.00 (8.42%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,736,550.00 (59.10%)
All other revenue $799,066.00 (27.20%)
Total revenue: $2,938,253.00

Charitable programs $2,441,992.00 (85.63%)
Management and administration $245,459.00 (8.61%)
Fundraising $164,388.00 (5.76%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,851,845.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $211,784.00 (7.60%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (0.61%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,866,127.00 (66.98%)
All other revenue $691,054.00 (24.80%)
Total revenue: $2,786,075.00

Charitable programs $2,621,360.00 (93.10%)
Management and administration $147,657.00 (5.24%)
Fundraising $46,742.00 (1.66%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,815,759.00

Journalists for Human Rights is another such group. While it may seem harmless enough to promote human rights abroad, it’s worth noting that these groups remain silent on what happens in Canada. They say nothing about the martial law and medical tyranny imposed on the people who help fund them.

JHR also helps fund “Disinfo Watch”, a supposedly independent website devoted to debunking conspiracy theories about the “pandemic”.

Simon Fraser University (BC) and Ryerson University (Ontario) are listed as being organizations to counter misinformation. Both are registered charities, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

These are just some of the media influencers working in Canada to misinform and deceive the public. And they are partially funded with tax dollars.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/07/backgrounder–helping-citizens-critically-assess-and-become-resilient-against-harmful-online-disinformation.html
(2) https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/
(3) https://www.apathyisboring.com/
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyQckVw?q.srchNm=apathy+is+boring&q.stts=0007&selectedFilingPeriodIndex=1&selectedCharityBn=859483349RR0001&isSingleResult=false
(5) https://nmc-mic.ca/
(6) https://civix.ca/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?
(8) https://www.ewc-rdc.ca/pub/en/mission_history
(9) https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/institute-for-canadian-citizenshipinstitut-pour-la-citoyennete-canadienne/
(10) https://www.globalvision.ca
(11) https://www.inclusion.ca/
(12) https://www.jhr.ca/
(13) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=journalists+for+human+rights&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=860372853RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(14) www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/
(15) https://mediasmarts.ca/
(16) www.newcanadianmedia.ca
(17) https://newsmediacanada.ca
(18) https://www.ryerson.ca/arts/research-and-innovation/democratic-engagement-exchange/
(19) http://www.samaracanada.com
(20) swna.com
(21) www.sfu.ca/dialogue.html
(22) www.vubblepop.com
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(25) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(26) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

Posted on

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

The Canadian Immunization Research Network is a group that receives substantial funding from drug companies, as well as Canadian taxpayers. Part of their mandate is evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Now, here’s where things start to get interesting.

Our Focus
CIRN’s goals remain consistent with that of PCIRN, however, the network will not be limited to influenza research alone. Rather, CIRN will cover a broader scope of research pertaining to all areas of vaccine, immunization, and infectious diseases. The network will strive to achieve the following goals:
.
(1) Continue to perform vaccine research to inform health policy in Canada.
(2) Maintain an active research network capable of immediate response to infectious disease threats in Canada.
(3) Further develop collaborations between Canadian vaccine experts.
(4) Train the next generation of pandemic vaccine researchers.
(5) Perform applied public health research and vaccine evaluations of high priority for Canadian health decision makers.

In their “focus section“, the CIRN mentions that evaulating vaccines of high priority for Canadian decision makers is something they do. So, are these the people who ensured these experimental “vaccines” got interim authorization.

Also, considering that Pfizer/BioNtech is one of the products that got the emergency authorization, isn’t this a conflict of interest? After all, Pfizer is one of the major donors.

According to their financial statements, almost $24 million of the $59 million that the CIRN has received since 2009 has come from industry sources. Considering that Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi are listed as partners, the bulk of it probably was from them.

Pfizer has been lobbying Ottawa for years to get its products distributed here. One of its officials, Steven Hogue, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office back when Jean Chretien was in charge.

GlaxoSmithKline is another one that’s busy in Ottawa. Lobbyists for the company have ties to both the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada. In fact, Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC, used to be a GSK lobbyist. Sanofi is involved in this as well.

This should be red flag for people. Pharmaceutical companies, involved in lobbying Ottawa and trying to sell products, are also financing the “independent” group that evaluates their effectiveness.

CIRN conducts a variety of research studies throughout the year, and many of these studies are multi-year projects. Often there are opportunities for members of the public to participate in studies in their local area; the Research Studies descriptions provide an overview of the study and indicate whether the study is active and recruiting.
.
Each research study funded by the CIRN Network will address one or more of the 5 following research area priorities:
.
(1) Rapid evaluation of candidate vaccines for safety and immunogenicity in persons of all ages;
(2) Population based methods to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and safety following release for general use;
(3) Vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of strategies to address hesitancy;
(4) Vaccine coverage, including isolated communities and cohorts of concern; and
(5) Adverse events following immunization.

CIRN funds research into a variety of subtopics, including vaccine hesitancy. This refers to the normal reluctance to put strange medications into one’s body. They are also involved in trying to convince pregnant women to take it. Research has also been done into proper messaging for Public Health Officials, as in, what lines or scripts are most effective. Another was using the internet to explain to why large portions of the public may be reluctant to take this.

Considering the amount of money CIRN gets from drug companies, there is an obvious dual loyalty presented here.

It’s not a stretch to call these “vaccine hesitancy” projects a form of marketing. Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi are studying their target markets, to see what techniques work.

CIRN has also received a number of grants from PHAC and the CIHR. Some of that is listed below.

(1) https://cirnetwork.ca/
(2) https://cirnetwork.ca/about-us/partners/
(3) https://cirnetwork.ca/about-us/our-focus/
(4) https://cirnetwork.ca/about-us/annual-reports/
(5) https://cirnetwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CIRN-annual-report-2019-jan4.pdf
(6) Canadian Immunization Research Network Annual Report 2019
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15283&regId=913259
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368839&regId=909846
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=357090&regId=889408
(10) https://cirnetwork.ca/research-studies/
(11) https://cirnetwork.ca/research-study/vaccine-hesitancy-during-pregnancy-why-are-maternity-care-providers-hesitant/
(12) https://cirnetwork.ca/research-study/developing-and-evaluating-public-health-messages-to-address-vaccine-hesitancy/
(13) https://cirnetwork.ca/research-study/monitoring-and-explaining-vaccine-refusal-using-the-internet-and-social-media/
(14) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=403974&lang=en
(15) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=182161&lang=en
(16) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=259644&lang=en
(17) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=317796&lang=en
(18) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=302856&lang=en
(19) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=311230&lang=en
(20) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=349359&lang=en
(21) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=365027&lang=en
(22) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=433192&lang=en
(23) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=424459&lang=en
(24) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=185282&lang=en
(25) https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/decisions/p/project_details.html?applId=258199&lang=en

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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