Another Toronto Court Challenge, But Will This One Actually Go Anywhere?

There was an online announcement of a Notice of Application filed in the Toronto Branch of Ontario Superior Court, Civil Division. Predictably, it caused a buzz in the alternative media. Several commented that it was disappointing the mainstream outlets chose not to cover it.

While that is a valid point, there is another one to raise: how come other complaints have dropped off of people’s radars? There was one filed in October 2019 that is collecting dust 18 months later. There is also a high profile suit filed July 2020 with no defenses submitted almost a year later. True, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines, but that lapsed September 14, 2020. There doesn’t appear to have been any attempt to either force that case ahead, or seek default judgement.

The average person may not know this, but it’s quite easy to search for a case in Ontario and see what progress, if any, has been made. If Parties aren’t even represented, that can also be found out.

Despite there being no movement in those cases, a defamation lawsuit was filed in December 2020. Interesting how actual human rights violations are worth only $11 million, but mean words on Twitter is worth $12.75 million. Perhaps there is some deeper insight that isn’t obvious.

Now, what people choose to do in their private lives is their business. That being said, when asking for donations from the public to finance a lawsuit, it’s worthwhile to ensure the money is going where it’s supposed to be.

One example last year was Action4Canada/Liberty Talk raising money for the promise of a lawsuit in B.C., against Bonnie Henry. Now, the fundraising started in September 2020 (if not earlier), so that has been 8 months now. The promised lawsuit has not materialized. Odessa Orlewicz has spoken about pocketing 25% of it.

It sounds great (on the surface) that another challenge was launched. However, it must be asked: will anything become of it? Or will it fade away, like its predecessors?

On the topic of covering court cases: it’s worth pointing out that various Libel & Slander Acts provide a number of defenses for people reporting on them. These include truth, opinion, public interest, and acting in good faith. Also, there are anti-SLAPP laws (strategic lawsuits against public participation), that ensure reporters and journalists will have a wide breadth to cover important events. For anyone wanting to publish information on court cases, this is important to know.

Subversion In The Courts: SOGI Activists Implementing Their Agenda By Stealth

According to the publication: Canadian Lawyer, working tirelessly to upend tradition and social norms is worthy of an honourable mention. Never mind the consequences of that work.

An interesting point about the struggle for “equal” rights. The more victories you achieve, only the less and less important issues remain. Here, “Morgane” Oger goes on CBC to talk about removing references involving gender from BC Courts. Yes, that’s where we are. Keep in mind, this person wanted to establish a doxing website, took a Christian to the cleaners for telling the truth, and got Vancouver Rape Relief defunded for not admitting men. Yes, Oger felt the need to push for an ideology at the expense of women.

As bad as Oger is, we need to look at the bigger picture: the SOGI agenda is being implemented into the Courts, with the deliberate aim of corrupting them. The institutional rot is not limited to a few activists seeking attention. Oger is a symptom of a much larger problem.

LEADER. EDUCATOR. ADVOCATE.
The CBA Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community Section (SOGIC) aims to:
-Address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited members within the CBA
Provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas and action on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Encourage lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited lawyers to actively participate in the CBA’s work
-Develop and provide continuing legal education and other professional development programs on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Develop member services relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited CBA members
.
OUR WORK
SOGIC is a founding member of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association. We liaise with lesbian and gay law groups in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, among others. Our members frequently attend the Nstrong>National Lesbian and Gay Law Association’s (NLGLA) Lavender Law conferences. The NLGLA is affiliated with the American Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has its own SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) section within it. Far from being limited, it has Provincial and International partners. Specifically, they list the U.S., U.K. and Israel.

This is far more coordinated than some activists and sympathetic media. The major goal is to get SOGI policies implemented into law. These are people trying to circumvent the legislative process.

One such person is Barbara Findlay, who refuses to spell her name with capital letters as an act of defiance. This spelling wasn’t for any real reason, just to cause friction. The publisher, Canadian Lawyer, did an article which lists several accomplishments she had over the years.

  • Changing definition of marriage
  • Putting 2 women on a birth certificate (2 mothers)
  • Forcing centers to host gay “weddings”
  • Forcing rape centers to accept tran-volunteers
  • Getting sex change surgery for inmates
  • Putting biologically male inmates in women’s prisons

Recently, Findlay was successful in getting a B.C. father‘s rights removed, as he tried to prevent his daughter from transitioning into a boy. Never mind the high regret and suicide rate among trans-children. The agenda had to go ahead.

Forcing the Knights of Columbus Center to host a lesbian “wedding” is an interesting one. Remember: the main rallying cry when changing the definition of marriage was that it wouldn’t impose on others. Turns out, that was a lie. There was every intention of imposing — later on.

Findlay and Oger line up ideologically when it comes to Vancouver Rape Relief. Findlay tried to force it to accept trans-volunteers, and Oger got it defunded for only accepting biological women as victims.

The society also notes that findlay founded the CBABC Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community (SOGIC) section and co-founded the CBA National SOGIC federation. In BC, SOGIC is now a community of over 215 LGBTQ2SI+ lawyers, law students and judges.

Findlay isn’t just a bystander. She founded the BC Branch of SOGI lawyers, and co-founded the National Federation. She has been involved in establishing the infrastructure.

The Canadian Bar Association also has an overtly anti-white agenda. They explicitly ask Trudeau to put more “BIPOC” (black, indigenous, people of colour), members onto the bench. Apparently whites can’t be trusted to understand the lived experience of others, especially when non-whites have such high crime rates.

The CBA has also written the Government on a variety of issues, including: conversion therapy, gay blood donation ban, banning intersex surgery decisions by parents, etc… This reads like it was written by EGALE or some other gay rights group.

C. A specific online hate remedy [Page 8]
.
While existing remedies not specifically addressed to the internet – section 12 of the CHRA, for instance – may be available to address online hate, we recommend adding a remedy specific to the internet. This would remove uncertainty and avoid litigation about the meaning of more generic legislation. It could also serve as a warning with an educational and preventive purpose. The government should not miss this opportunity.
.
A revised civil remedy needs to be directed not only against inciters, but also against publishers, including internet platforms. Internet providers should not have civil immunity for the material on their platforms.
.
Rather than removing liability of internet providers from individual defamation suits, we recommend that the Tribunal have legislated power to make legally binding orders on internet providers.
.
The repealed section 13 of the CHRA excluded internet providers from its ambit:
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of
that matter.
.
A re-enacted section 13 should expressly say the exact opposite: when an internet provider allows a person to use their services, the provider is communicating what the person posts on the provider’s platform.

The CBA explicitly supports hate speech laws. Typically, lawyers argue that people should have more freedoms and more rights. But here, they are quite okay with stripping away those rights, and putting the screws to internet providers, in the name of fighting hate.

Now, calling for less whites to be put on benches should be seen as an act of hate speech, right? No, there are a few groups it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against.

If the CBA were truly committed to open and honest discussion on controversial topics, that point of view may be understood. However, it functions as an activist group.

These are the people who have infiltrated our legal system, and are covertly (and not covertly) trying to remake society. Equality for all is a great talking point, but that isn’t really the goal.

It’s true that CBA-SOGIC may not speak for all members, and likely doesn’t, but they act as if they do.

Oger Discusses Stripping “Gendered Language” From BC Courts
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-further-weaponizes-human-rights-codes-55k-ruling/
https://morganeoger.ca/2020/02/20/vancouver-rape-relief-failure-to-meet-vancouver-criteria-for-program-funding-shows-pressing-need-to-update-approach/

https://www.cba.org/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Identity-Community/
Canadian Lawyer Mag On Barbara Findlay
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/2019bcsc254/2019bcsc254
https://canucklaw.ca/bc-supreme-court-rules-parents-cant-stop-kids-from-getting-sex-changes/
Canadian Bar Association Put More Non Whites On Benches
Canadian Bar Association Trudeau Should Change Laws
Canadian Bar Association Hate Speech Laws

Alberta Health Services: Mostly-Autonomous Corporation, Charity

Overview
Alberta Health Services (AHS) is the provincial health agency tasked with delivering health services to Albertans.
.
Alberta Health is the government department that sets policy, legislation and standards for the health system in Alberta. It also:
.
-allocates funding for and oversees AHS and many other health agencies and boards
pays physicians
-is responsible for primary care
-protects Albertans from infectious diseases
-administers provincial programs such as the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan

From the governance page, it appears that Alberta Health Services, and Alberta Health are in fact 2 different entities. The former more of day to day operations, and the later more involved in budgets and administration.

Alberta Health is a Ministry in the Executive Council of Alberta. By contrast, Alberta Health Services is a semi-autonomous organization that actually runs the care in the Province.

From its 2017 governance chart, Alberta Health Services answers directly to the Ministry of Health, and then has power over other groups. However, the current Health Minister is Tyler Shandro, who has no background in health care, (much like Adrian Dix of B.C.).

A. ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES MANDATE
.
AHS is a corporate body consisting of members (Members), who are commonly referred to as the “Board”. The Board governs AHS, overseeing the management of its business and affairs. In accordance with the AHS Amended General Bylaws and subject to legislation governing public agencies, the Board may recruit, direct, evaluate, determine the compensation of and, if required, dismiss a chief executive officer (CEO). The CEO is responsible for the general supervision over the business and affairs of AHS. The Board has a fiduciary duty to carry out its responsibilities for the benefit, and in the interests, of AHS, within, and in accordance with, the applicable legislation.

Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH)
The CMOH is appointed by the Minister under the Public Health Act, which is paramount to all other provincial legislation with the exception of the Alberta Bill of Rights

.

There is also that “minor” detail that the Alberta Bill of Rights tops everything, including the Public Health Act, but that routinely gets ignored.

From its mandate letter, Alberta Health Services is subject to both the Public Agencies Governance Act, (PAGA), and the Regional Health Authorities Act, (RHAA).

AHS is structured as a corporate body. When it refers to “Members”, it means Board Members, not the tens of thousands of employees involved in health care.

An observation: the Board has an obligation to carry out its responsibilities for the benefit and interest of AHS. It doesn’t specify for the benefit and interest of the public. An oversight?

[By-Laws]
ARTICLE 12
PROTECTION OF MEMBERS, SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND OTHERS
12.1 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Each Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, or Employee, acting in good faith and with a view to the best interests of AHS, shall not be liable for, and is hereby released from:
(a) the acts, neglects or defaults of any other Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive or Employee;
(b) any loss, damage or expense happening through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired;
(c) the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in or upon which any of the monies shall be invested;
(d) any loss, damage or expense arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or tortious act of any person with whom any of the monies, securities or effects shall be deposited;
(e) any loss occasioned by any error of judgment or oversight on his or her part; and
(f) any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his or her office or in relation thereto.
.
12.2 INDEMNITY
(a) To the greatest extent permitted by law including s. 2.5(1) of the Regional Health Authorities Regulation, a Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, Employee, a former Member, Senior Executive, or Employee, or a person who, at the Board’s request, acts or act as a director, officer, or employee of a body corporate in which the Board is or was a shareholder or creditor, shall be indemnified against all costs, charges, and expenses including an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgment if reasonably incurred by him or her in respect of any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding to which he or she is made a party by reason of being or having been a Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, or Employee, or director, officer, or employee of such body corporate, if:
(i) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of AHS; and
(ii) in the case of a criminal or administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by a monetary penalty, he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that such conduct was lawful.
(b) If a court order is required to provide the indemnity in Article 12.2(a), AHS shall proceed in good faith to obtain that order.
(c) The indemnity provided for in Article 12.2(a) shall be deemed to have been in effect from the date AHS or its legal predecessors were established unless a later date is stated in the indemnity.
.
12.4 APPLICATION
The indemnity provided in Article 12.2 shall:
(a) not operate in limitation of any other indemnity which is otherwise available;
(b) apply notwithstanding the fact that the person having the benefit of the indemnity may serve or has served in any other capacity; and
(c) not be included, for the purposes of any supplemental bylaw dealing with debt obligations, guarantees, indemnity obligations, and capital leases, in the calculation of outstanding debt obligations, guarantee obligations, indemnity obligations, and capital lease obligations.

In its By-Laws, Alberta Health Services explicitly indemnifies (gives legal protection to) all employees, administration and board members for any action they do.

It also states that if necessary, AHS will go to court to obtain such indemnification.

We know that “vaccine” manufacturers are indemnified against liability. These By-Laws would also provide legal protection to doctors, nurses, or others who end up recommending them and/or injecting them. Just a reminder: interim authorization is not the same thing as approval.

Additionally, there’s an interesting clarification here. The indemnification will apply if the person act in the “best interests of AHS”. It doesn’t say they’ll be indemnified for acting in the best interests of the public. Poor wording, or is there something else?

The By-Laws also states that employees and the bosses will be indemnified even if they serve in another capacity. True, there is a conflict-of-interest declaration. However, in theory, the protections would apply even in those cases.

Article 8.6 states that only members, or specifically authorized people, may address the Board in meetings. So it isn’t really a place for genuine public input.

Regarding the Alberta Public Health Act: know that the current version was heavily based on Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act. That was derived on the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations, which are legally binding. PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is effectively an extension of the World Health Organization.

AHS is a mostly autonomous corporation delivering health care. The Chief Medical Officer (Deena Hinshaw) is not accountable to the public. Current laws were written by a Supra-National Body. You get it now?

Update To The Article

Alberta Health Services is actually a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency. In the last year, it took in some $15.3 billion, mainly from the Alberta Government

Receipted donations $138,000.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $34,990,000.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $14,364,265,000.00 (93.67%)
All other revenue $936,343,000.00 (6.11%)
Total revenue: $15,335,736,000.00

Charitable programs $15,038,842,000.00 (97.10%)
Management and administration $448,398,000.00 (2.90%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $15,487,240,000.00

Total compensation for all positions: $7,824,089,000.00
Full-time employees: 50,899
Part-time employees: 65,004
Professional and consulting fees: $23,812,000.00
Compensated full-time positions $350,000 and over: 10

IMPORTANT LINKS
Alberta Announces (2008) Creation of Alberta Health Services
https://archive.is/ZLzN8
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/about/about.aspx
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/publications/ahs-ar-2017/governance.html
https://www.alberta.ca/governance.aspx
https://archive.is/rssLM
https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx

https://extranet.ahsnet.ca/teams/policydocuments/1/clp-ahs-mandate-roles.pdf
Alberta Health Services – Mandate And Role
Alberta Health Services – Bylaws And Rules
Alberta Health Services – Delegation And Authority
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A31P5.pdf
Alberta Public Agencies Governance Act
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/R10.pdf
Alberta Regional Health Authorities Act

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part I
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

(A) Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As UN Outpost
(B) BC Provincial Health Services Authority A Private Corporation

Facebook Officials Meetings With Canadian Parliament: Still Pretty Cozy

Does nothing seem off about this? Facebook meeting with Parliament to discuss what revenue sharing and terms of service will be allowed? Or Kevin Chan and Rachel Curran both working in the Government previously?

1. Important Links

Parliamentary Hearing Information
January 29 Parliamentary Meeting (English)
March 29 Parliamentary Hearing (English)
Bill C-10: Changes To Broadcasting Act (Review)
Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act (Review)
Journalism Trust Initiatives, Related Groups (Review)

2. Facebook Far Too Connected To Politics

As outlined previously, Facebook Canada is far too intertwined with major politicians in Canada. This includes both Liberals and Conservatives, and lots of background is provided here. How there be any real independence?

3. Video Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

March 29, 2021 (Meeting 22)
Facebook Inc.

  • Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada
  • Marc Dinsdale, Head, Media Partnerships, Facebook Canada
  • Rachel Curran, Policy Manager, Facebook Canada

January 29, 2021 (Meeting 12)
Department of Canadian Heritage

  • Hélène Laurendeau, Deputy Minister
  • Jean-Stéphen Piché, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs

Facebook Inc.

  • Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada
  • Marc Dinsdale, Head, Media Partnerships, Facebook Canada
  • Rachel Curran, Policy Manager, Facebook Canada

House of Commons

  • Hon. Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Bit of a sidenote: Marc Dinsdale worked for Rogers Communications and Bell Media prior to getting involved with Facebook. Very interesting.

Guess we will have to see what changes result from all of this. However, it doesn’t appear that the participants are free speech absolutists in the slightest. So what exactly will they deem as worthy to scrub from the internet?

4. Hearings For Bill C-10 Ongoing

Worth a reminder: the hearings for Bill C-10 are going on at the same time. This has the power to drastically alter the media landscape in Canada. That Bill has cleared Second Reading and is being studied. A followup will need to be done just on this Bill.

TSCE #9(A): Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 was an omnibus piece of legislation. Given its size, it was impossible to properly debate back in 2017/2018. But it’s worth reviewing, even after the fact. It watered down penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

1. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

2. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

3. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

4. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

5. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

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

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.

(1) Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)
(2) Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
(3) Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(4) Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
(5) Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
(6) Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
(7) Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada
(8) Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

Journalism Trust Initiative; Trusted News Initiative; Project Origin; The Trust Project

Having an open, independent and free media is essential to any functioning society. However, that is not the case here. Groups like the “Journalism Trust Initiative” sounds like something that might have been concocted in the Soviet Union. But no, it’s operational within the free world.

1. Important Links

(1) https://jti-rsf.org/en/
(2) https://jti-rsf.org/en/about
(3) RSF Sues Facebook, Claims Too LITTLE Censorship
(4) https://archive.is/A6847
(5) https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
(6) https://www.originproject.info/
(7) https://id2020.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(9) https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated
(10) https://contentauthenticity.org
(11) https://www.partnershiponai.org
(12) https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee
(13) https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot
(14) https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886
(15) https://thetrustproject.org/
(16) https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators
(17) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/today-in-media-history-in-1947-the-press-reported-on-the-hutchins-commission-report/
(18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-trust-1.5936535
(19) https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/local-news-directory

2. “News Trust” Groups To Investigate

There is something Orwellian or dystopian about organizations that have to stress so frequently that they are trustworthy sources. These are groups which are supposed to be doing this in journalism.

  • Journalism Trust Initiative
    1. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    2. European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    3. Agence France Presse (AFP)
  • Trusted News Initiative
  • Project Origin
    1. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
    2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
    3. Radio-Canada
    4. Microsoft
    5. New York Times
  • The Trust Project
    1. Sally Lehrman
    2. Microsoft Defending Democracy Program
    3. The Peg and Rick Young Foundation
    4. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    5. Trustworthy Journalism Initiative of Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    6. Bing
    7. Facebook
    8. Google

Who can forget the Q-Anon saying to “trust the plan”? After all, there was supposed to be some secret army ready to take out the Deep State, and put all of the pedophiles in jail. Also, “Operation Trust” was a scheme in the 1920s to keep the Communists in power in the Soviet Union, by letting people think there was a plot already underway.

This may seem crazy, but perhaps these “trust” groups operate in much the same way, and to achieve essentially the same purpose of deflating resistance to the current power structure.

There is another thread that runs through these NGOs. They all oppose what they call “misinformation” surrounding legitimate questions of this “pandemic”. Each one supports the official narrative.

3. Who’s Behind Journalism Trust Initiative

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in partnership with:
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Agence France Presse (AFP)

Reporters Without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union, and Agence France Presse are the 3 main groups behind the Journalism Trust Initiative. That being said, their organization has grown considerably since the founding in 1985.

Here is a list of selected participants in the development stage of the JTI Standard included, in alphabetical order. Note: these names came directly from their website.

  • All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK, Russia)
  • Associated Press (USA)
  • Association of Taiwanese Journalists (Taiwan)
  • Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM, Italy)
  • BBC (UK)
  • City University of New York (CUNY, USA)
  • Civil (USA)
  • Deutsche Presse Agentur (dpa, Germany)
  • Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
  • European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)
  • Facebook (USA)
  • Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU, the Netherlands)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)
  • Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
  • Google (USA)
  • The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS, UK)
  • Internews (UK)
  • Journalists Association of South Korea (JAK, South Korea)
  • NewsGuard (USA)
  • Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK, Norway)
  • RTL Group (Luxembourg)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ, USA)
  • Swiss Press Council (Switzerland)
  • Tagesspiegel (Germany)
  • Tamedia (Switzerland)
  • Thomson Foundation (UK)
  • TT Nyhetsbyrån (Sweden)
  • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Some of these names should immediately stand out, such as Facebook, Google and UNESCO. Yes, 3 of the most powerful organizations are involved in this. As for the 3 behind JTI:

(a) Founded in 1985, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) became one of the world’s leading NGOs in the defence and promotion of freedom of information. RSF is registered in France as a non- profit organization based in Paris, with consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). Our foreign sections, bureaux in ten cities, and a network of correspondents in 130 countries….

(b) The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the world’s foremost alliance of public service media (PSM). Our mission is to make PSM indispensable. We represent 117 media organizations in 56 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and have an additional 34 Associates in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas. Our Members operate nearly 2,000 television and radio channels alongside numerous online platforms….

(c) Founded in 1835, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the third largest international news agency in the world delivering fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world, from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology.

That is how they describe themselves. While there is nothing wrong with people in the industry collaborating, the concern comes when viewpoint diversity is stifled. Legitimate debate and contrary points of view can simply be disregarded.

We live in an era of the grand de-enlightenment.
.
On the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts. The rule-makers in big-tech are not accountable to anyone. The rules of the game are in- transparent and change all the time.
.
On this rocky, tilting and ever turning playing field, journalism is unfairly disadvantaged, losing reputation, reach and revenues – which renders it even less competitive.
.
That logic needs to be reversed. Democracy dies without a fact-based discourse.

Everything in this section sounds entirely reasonable, and valid. The internet does tend to promote fake news and sensationalized nonsense over real journalism. And true, democracy is dead without a fact based discourse. However, what this group finds acceptable does not match with many others.

4. RSF Sues Facebook, Too LITTLE Censoring

This Complaint, filed in France, should terrify people. Reporters Without Borders is upset that Facebook isn’t doing enough to censor so-called misinformation on its platform. To repeat: the allegation is that Facebook SHOULD DO MORE to censor people spreading different views on the so-called pandemic.

Facebook has been notorious for its revised Terms of Service, and deplatforming, but that apparently wasn’t enough. RSF is taking action against a member of its own group.

Note: the Complaint itself doesn’t seem to be posted. RSF has been contacted for a copy of it.

For an example of how extensively Facebook already censors, consider this: Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged to Canadian politicians that over 16 million pieces of “misinformation” had already been removed. But that apparently isn’t good enough.

5. Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organisation.

At least we’re getting some honesty here. The Trusted News Initiative was set up primarily to counter “misinformation” of a serious nature. It specifically cites elections and this “pandemic”.

Although not explicitly stated, having these groups band together in such a way would be quite effective at censoring legitimate information. Of course, it would always be passed of as an emergency.

A cynic might wonder if Trump intentionally went on about election conspiracy theories in order to help justify the collusion of these “independent” media outlets. Perhaps this is reaching, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Facebook and Google are both part of the Trusted News Initiative.

6. Project Origin — Microsoft A Partner

Project Origin was established to provide a platform for collaboration and discussion among a set of partners on the creation and adoption of a new media provenance tracking process, aimed initially at news and information content. At scale, this process could encompass traditional publishing (electronic and print), information technology, social media and consumer software. We are planning for a multiparty stakeholder, cross-organisational collaboration around combating disinformation.

Positive authentication of the provenance of legitimate news stories will help by making it easier to identify manipulated and synthetic audiovisual content. The Origin process is conceptually designed to work with text, video, images and audio content.

The Origin collaborators have agreed to develop a framework for an engineering approach, initially focusing on video, images, and audio. We hope this work could be helpful in developing a global standard for establishing content integrity.

CBC/Radio-Canada, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Microsoft are working together with what is called “Project Origin“. The stated goal is to be able to find the origin and background of news that is making its way onto public domains.

Never mind that Microsoft is heavily involved in ID2020, or that the BBC receives regular financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Forget about Gates’ ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Surely, this organization is about promoting truth and accuracy in media.

Project Origin offers a more technical way of finding the sources, such as tracing the image, or similar word patterns, or seeing where else it has been published. Consider it a form of cyber-sleuthing for content flagged as “misinformation”.

Media Provenance Countering Synthetic Media

SOURCES:
1. C. Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated”, First Draft, Feb. 2017. Available at:
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated.
2. “Setting the industry standard for digital content attribution”, The Content Authenticity Initiative, 2019.
Available at: https://contentauthenticity.org.
3. The Partnership on AI. Available at: https://www.partnershiponai.org.
4. “AI and Media Integrity Steering Committee”, The Partnership on AI, 2019. Available at:
https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee.
5. G. Barber, “Deepfakes Are Getting Better”, WIRED Magazine, May 2019. Available at
https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot.
6. “News Provenance Project”, New York Times, 2018. Available at:
https://www.newsprovenanceproject.com/resources.
7. P. England et. al., “AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance”, arXiv:2001.07886, Jan. 2020.
Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886.
8. M Russinovich e.t al., “CCF: A Framework for Building Confidential Verifiable Replicated Services”,
Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR‐TR‐2019‐16, Apr. 2019. Available at
https://www.microsoft.com/en‐us/research/publication/ccf‐a‐framework‐for‐building‐confidential‐verifiable‐replicated‐services.

Project Origin does post a research paper going into extensive detail about how such a system may be organized. It would incorporate AI into it, flagging content deemed suspicious. How the metadata is actually used is explained in considerable deta in video as well.

7. The Trust Project, Social Media Grouping

The Trust Project is an organization of some 200 media outlets which conform to certain preset standards of journalism. The propagation and promotion of the their work across social media in influenced by Bing, Facebook and Google. Among the Canadian members are:

  • CBC
  • CTV
  • Globe & Mail
  • The Canadian Press
  • Toronto Star

The Trust Project does have its 8 Trust Indicators listings, and they are quite good. The problem is that these organizations don’t practice what they preach in terms of differing views. Specifically, contradictory information on this “pandemic” narrative are censored, and otherwise smeared as conspiracy theories.

At least on paper, there is nothing objectionable about this NGO. The issues arise when their behaviour in practice is considered.

The Trust Project references the 1947 Hitchens Commission to base this on. The report claims that democracy is in danger if there isn’t a free media, and that control in the hands of too few people is a danger. Instead of reading this as a warning, it appears to have become a roadmap, given how much media collusion we now have.

These trust groups function like a modern day Mockingbird Media. It really is one group that controls nearly everything.

8. CBC’s Efforts To “Rebuild Trust”

About a month ago, CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published an article that stated trust in it was waning. It emphasized that efforts were being undertaken to rebuild that trust, and went into significant detail.

  • CBC News is a member of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an effort to establish globally recognized standards of trustworthiness in news, led by Journalists without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union and Agence France-Presse. As part of a recent pilot, we submitted a 70-page questionnaire on our practices for an independent review and hope to share the results in the near future.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has been a member of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) since its inception in 2019. The TNI brings together global news organizations and tech platforms to combat disinformation. It created a real-time, early warning system to flag serious disinformation that may pose a threat to life or the integrity of the electoral process. It has been activated for the general elections in the U.K., Taiwan, Myanmar and the U.S., as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The TNI will host a Trust in News conference later this month.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has joined with the BBC, the New York Times and Microsoft in support of an effort to develop Project Origin, an open standard for confirming the authenticity of content from trusted sources to fight “deep fake” video news generated by artificial intelligence. This is a new application of established technology to digitally verify the authenticity of our news content when it appears on other online platforms.
  • CBC News is part of the Trust Project, an international partnership with tech and media companies to increase transparency and accuracy in online news. CBC policies on transparent labels, corrections, bylines and links to our JSP on our digital pages have become a model for other partners in the project.

While there are some legitimate steps in the article that CBC can take, it seems strange to partner up with so many other groups, such as the ones listed above. It takes away from the independence (or even the illusion of independence), to be so tightly interwoven with these “trust” groups.

CBC does have its own “directory” of trusted news groups, which seems Orwellian. Part of Canadians’ tax dollars are going towards creating a database of outlets that will not stray from permitted narratives.

9. Media, Social Media, Influence And Subsidies

CBC claims it wants to improve the trust it has among Canadians. However, it doesn’t raise any eyebrows when something like this happens: Dominic LeBlanc openly suggesting passing laws to combat “misinformation”. Since there is ideological alignment, this chilling statement goes largely unchallenged.

It seems that outlets like CBC wish to “appear” to be trustworthy, but have no interest in conducting themselves in ways that genuinely foster trust. How bad is the media bias?

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) True North Canada A Fake Charity, Subsidized By Public
(3) Government Subsidizes Postmedia To Ensure Positive Coverage
(4) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(5) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(6) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(7) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(8) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(9) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(10) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies
(11) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(12) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx
(13) Bill C-10; Open Collusion Between Ottawa, Social Media
(14) Facebook; Kevin Chan; Peter Donolo; Rachel Curran; Erin O’Toole

The unfortunate reality is that there are many legitimate reasons to not trust the media in Canada, and elsewhere. Coming together in these groups does little to conceal the lack of genuine interest in journalism. While it’s true that professionals so have to sell to make a living, it shouldn’t come at the expense of their integrity.