Category: Aus/NZ

Posted on

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

A while back, an Australian Court issued a ruling that is eerily similar to what has been happening here. A Proposed Class Action was filed to obtain justice for victims who had been injured from the “Covid vaccines”.

Justice Anna Katzmann of the Federal Court in New South Wales issued a 62 page decision, see archive, explaining why the lawsuit was thrown out.

***Note: this ruling was actually from April, 2025. Due to a bunch of different delays and setbacks, including getting these documents, it’s finally being covered now. Nonetheless, it’s proof that the rampant screw-ups from the “freedom lawyers” isn’t limited to just Canada. Australian lawyers apparently can be just as bad. Here’s an earlier article on it.

The Plaintiff is also on the hook for 80% of the Defendants’ Court costs.

  1. The third further amended statement of claim be struck out.
  2. No other amended statement of claim be filed without the leave of the Court.
  3. The respondents’ application for security for costs be dismissed.
  4. The applicants pay 80% of the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2024.
  5. These orders be entered forthwith.

Although the Claim was struck, it at least allows for the possibility that a proper version may be filed, if leave was granted. But it wouldn’t happen with present counsel.

While the lawyers in Canada (deservedly) get endless criticism from this site, it’s worth noting that the problem isn’t limited to just them. We have more in common than it seems.

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada are ridiculed for their absurdly long claims (391 and 191 pages, respectively). However, this one much longer than either of those.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Statement of Claim was 1,000 pages long. Or at least, 2 of the versions were 1,000 pages. Lawyers apparently “settled” on one that was over 800. This alone would have unnecessarily driven up legal costs.

651 pages – first version
652 pages – second version
990 pages – third version
1,023 pages – fourth version
818 pages – fifth version

Excluding Notice of Filing and the back page, this totals 4,134, or 827 pages per draft. Lawyers would have to read over 4,000 pages just to cover the different versions of the Statement of Claim. Beyond that, Justice Katzmann complains that her various directions weren’t complied with, driving up costs, and wasting time.

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

[2] The proceeding was commenced in April 2023 by the filing of an originating application and a 652-page statement of claim. Since then, the statement of claim has been amended four times. Still, the pleading remains prolix. The latest version, the third further amended statement of claim (3FASOC), is 819 pages long. It is dense and extremely difficult to follow. Substantial parts of it are impenetrable.

[3] The relief sought is “compensation and/or damages” with interest plus costs. The basis of the claim for compensation, as distinct from damages, is obscure. A claim is made in the pleading, but not in the originating application, for exemplary damages but that claim is not particularised, contrary to the requirement in r 16.44(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) that, where such a claim is made, the pleading must also “state particulars of the facts on which the claim is based”. Despite the misfeasance claim, no declaration is sought that anything allegedly done by any of the Commonwealth officers was unauthorised, invalid or beyond power.

[13] The respondents’ contention is that summary judgment should be entered in their favour because the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success; the 3FASOC fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action; and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

[14] Alternatively, the respondents contend that the pleading should be struck out in full because it contains scandalous material, is embarrassing, evasive and ambiguous, and an abuse of process, and it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[15] The respondents contend that the negligence claim is bound to fail because the applicants have no reasonable prospect of establishing the existence of the pleaded duty; the allegations of bad faith have not been adequately pleaded or properly particularised; the allegations of breach are vague, generalised, embarrassing and inappropriate; and the pleading makes no attempt to link the alleged breaches of duty to the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. The respondents contend that the misfeasance claim is fatally flawed in a number of respects.

[37] Pleadings are covered by Pt 16 of the Rules. The key features include the following matters. First, a pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits: r 16.02(1)(b). Second, it must identify the issues the party wants the Court to resolve: r 16.02(1)(c). Third, it must state the material facts on which the party relies that are necessary to give the opposite party fair notice of the case against it but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved: r 16.02(d). Fourth, it must state the provisions of any statute relied on: r 16.02(e). In addition, a pleading must not ask for relief that is not claimed in the originating application: r 16.02(4).

[38] Importantly, not all relevant facts are “material facts”. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action, that is to say, if it is a fact which, in combination with other facts, gives rise to
a right to sue: Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697 at 710–712 (Scott LJ). In other
words, a fact is material if it is essential to prove that fact in order to make out the cause of
action or put another way, it is an element of the cause of action.

The decision is much longer, of course, but this is noteworthy. Justice Katzmann has to explain, in great detail, what pleadings are supposed to include. Despite the tedious length, most of the necessary information isn’t submitted at all. Nearly the entirety of these filings is irrelevant.

While this was in Australia, the Judge could easily be describing a filing from several Canadian cases.

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

In fairness, Plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient detail so that Defendants understand what they’re being accused of. This is necessary.

However, this goes far beyond that. It argues ad nauseum the side effects and inadequate testing of vaccines. And it goes on for hundreds of pages. The goal of pleadings is to simply lay out the allegations so they can be responded to.

The Claim does (briefly) address the classes of Plaintiffs who will be covered by it. But it gets bogged down by the minute detail. Indeed, this appears designed to be incoherent and convoluted.

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Another parallel here is that this case had significant fundraising as well. While this is certainly not the only source of crowdfunding, this took in nearly $173,000 Australian dollars. Overall, close to $1 million was raised.

And all for a case so poorly drafted it never stood a chance.

Gee, they’re not in cahoots, are they?

AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1.1) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
(1.2) Decision Of Justice Anna Katzmann
(2) Aussie Applicants Genuine Steps Statement (April 26th, 2023)
(3) Aussie Statement of Claim (April 26th, 2023)
(4) Aussie Amended Statement of Claim (April 28th, 2023)
(5) Aussie Further Amended Statement of Claim (September 18th, 2023)
(6) Aussie Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (March 4th, 2024)
(7) Aussie Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (May 6th, 2024)
(8) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (June 17th, 2024)
(9) Aussie Affidavit of Melissa McCann Redacted (July 15th, 2024)
(10) Aussie Applicants Written Submissions (November 11th, 2024)
(11) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (November 18th, 2024)
(12) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (November 29th, 2024)
(13) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (December 20th, 2024)
(14) Aussie Applicants Response (December 20th, 2024)

Posted on

Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

1. Important Links

https://www.omidyargroup.com/
https://luminategroup.com/
https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
https://au.reset.tech/
https://www.reset.tech/about/
https://www.reset.tech/people/
https://archive.is/AuwcW
https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

  • Democracy Fund
  • First Look Media
  • Flourish
  • Hopelab
  • Humanity United
  • Imaginable Futures
  • Luminate
  • Omidyar Network
  • Omidyar Network India
  • Ulupono Initiative

The Democracy Fund
The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

First Look Media
First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

Humanity United
Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Luminate
Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

Omidyar Network India
Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

The World Post
An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

What we do
We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
.
Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
.
We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

Pia Mancini
Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

Poppy Wood
As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
.
We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

Simon Goff
Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

Ben Scott
Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

Amit Singh
Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

Posted on

CANZUK Still Going Ahead, Despite “Global Pandemic”

Canada is supposedly in the middle of a deadly health crisis. One might expect there to be a push to close national borders to the greatest extent possible. Instead, it’s full speed ahead to the one-world order.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

For a bit of context, keep in mind that Covid-19 is supposedly a deadly disease that has caused untold death and misery across the planet. Now, it would seem counter-intuitive to promote the open borders agenda in the middle of it. However, that is exactly what is happening.

2. Who Is James Skinner, CANZUK Head?<

  • Congressional Assistant (U.S.)
  • Parliamentary Adviser (Australia)
  • Parliamentary Adviser (U.K.)
  • Conservative Party of Canada

James Skinner is quite the varied political operative. It’s important to note that he was the Vice President of a Conservative Party of Canada EDA at the same time. Quite the conflict of interest.

Also, the politicians supporting CANZUK aren’t Liberals, they’re Conservatives. Skinner is using his political ties to push CPC policy towards open borders. Skinner is also an experienced lobbyist, and brings those skills to this project.

3. Bait-And-Switch #1: CANZUK V.S. UNGMC

In late 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada finally decided that it opposed the UNGMC, the United Nations Global Migration Compact. This was done just days before the agreement was scheduled to be signed. There were valid criticisms about “setting international standards” for migration.

However, this involves some serious mental gymnastics. CANZUK is literal open borders, and the CPC has that policy on its books. Worse, this would be legally binding, unlike the UN Compact.

4. Bait-And-Switch #2: Expand CANZUK Zone

This was addressed here. CANZUK is sold to the public as a free trade & open movement agreement between 4 countries. However, there are many, like Erin O’Toole, who support expanding it even further. Once it’s operational, open up to other countries.

5. Bait-And-Switch #3: When It Started

To begin with, the group was formed in 2015. The Above video of Erin O’Toole was from the 2018 CPC Policy Convention in Halifax. At that point, the Party officially adopted CANZUK. It is only AFTER this adoption that CANZUK International forms a Federal Corporation in Canada.

And it is only in the last few months that there is any “official” lobbying done on behalf of the organization. The order seems completely backwards.

The only way this makes sense is that it was all agreed to — behind closed doors — long before anything official was put into writing.

6. Bait-And-Switch #4: Countering China

Here’s another sleight of hand going on: CANZUK is currently being sold as a way to counter growing Chinese influence. This is nonsense, as CANZUK is not any sort of military agreement, simply trade and movement. Moreover, since O’Toole still supports high levels of Chinese immigration and trade, it’s unclear what he expects to accomplish.

Got to admire the nerve. The CPC pushed for FIPA, which allowed China almost unfettered access into Canada. It was sold as an investment protection initiative, and an increase in trade. Now that Canadians want less to do with China, CANZUK is sold as a way to counter China increasing global influence.

7. Bait-And-Switch #5: Healthcare Boost

Remember the panic over empty shelves of toilet paper or the sudden drug prescription limit of 30 days? Now imagine an alliance that would have allowed us to be better prepared to handle this crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted numerous gaps in our healthcare systems, be it issues of equity and access as evidenced by the disproportionately affected visible minorities or the inadequate security of our supply chains. The disruptions in personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of adequate testing and drug shortages have been sources of stress for frontline workers, healthcare managers and patients alike.

Our healthcare services are perennially underfunded and overstretched: the pandemic has laid bare our vulnerabilities to physician shortages, high rates of infection (nearly 20 per cent as of September 2020) among healthcare workers, increased healthcare costs, worsening mental health, and chronically underfunded long-term care. Furthermore, the pandemic has demonstrated the lack of an effective international crisis-management system. With global and national realignments the need of the hour, CANZUK is an idea whose time has come.

Remember people buying out all the toilet paper last year? Well, guess what? If we had more open borders, with more free trade, that likely wouldn’t have happened. In fact, things would have been a lot better off. Forget about closing borders in a crisis.

8. Bait-And-Switch #6: No Global Crisis

One would think that in the middle of a so-called “global pandemic” that open borders ideas like CANZUK would be put on the backburner, at least for the foreseeable future. Nope. Instead, there is scarcely a mention. Funny, how that works out. It’s almost like there really is nothing serious to worry about.

In fact, scrolling through CANZUK’s many articles, there’s barely a mention at all.

Different excuses. Different lies. But the open borders agenda rolls on.

(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jrskinner/
(2) https://archive.is/IZ7MB
(3) http://openparliament.ca
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x167VPhSJaY
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12424363&V_TOKEN=1611040234112&crpNm=canzuk&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1611036807784
(7) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2021/01/canzuk-a-cure-for-our-healthcare-challenges.html
(8) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2020/09/all-party-parliamentary-group-appoints-canzuk-international-as-official-adviser.html
(9) canzuk.01.directors.list
(10) canzuk.02.articles.of.incorporation
(11) canzuk.03.corporate.profile

Posted on

WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

The World Economic Forum, which has: Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, and Al Gore as Trustees, it still promoting the “Great Reset” agenda. The person in the top photo self-identifies as Theresa Tam, who is supposed to be the Public Health Officer of Canada.

People seem to think that Canada has control and sovereignty over its own health care and health systems. Let’s put that illusion to rest, once and for all.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.

2. Important Links

(1) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=7
(2) https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/what-are-the-international-health-regulations-and-emergency-committees
(3) https://archive.is/Ok5jx
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/international-activities/international-partners-organizations/world-health-organization.html
(5) https://archive.is/nwz4S
(6) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(7) https://archive.is/wwRfk
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(9) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85816
(10) https://archive.is/vJJUE
(11) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85816/Official_record176_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(12) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=1395913&View=5
(13) https://archive.is/YrTHz
(14) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/38/1/80
(15) https://archive.is/ZbPDU
(16) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/09-07-2020-independent-evaluation-of-global-covid-19-response-announced
(17) https://archive.is/kofuW
(18) https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.may_.2020.who_.convention.free_.speech.pdf
(20) https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
(21) https://archive.is/OgNwP
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf;jsessionid=8C456867FD2A9E524D1147D63125FD59?sequence=1
(23) https://www.who.int/ihr/about/FAQ2009.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.frequently.asked_.questions.pdf
(25) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69770/WHO_CDS_EPR_IHR_2007.1_eng.pdf?sequence=1
(26) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihrbrief1en.pdf?ua=1
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.international.obligations.pdf
(28) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihr_brief_no_2_en.pdf?ua=1
(29) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.reporting.requirements.pdf
(30) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihr_brief_no_3_en.pdf?ua=1
(31) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.points.of_.entry_.pdf

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

Background
-Established in 1946, Canada was the Third Member State to ratify the Constitution on August 29, 1946
-A Canadian Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Brock Chisholm, became WHO’s first Director General
-Canada’s points of intervention occur during the World Health Assembly, at the Executive Board, Regional Committees and by participating in the work of technical groups; Tropical Diseases Research, Human Reproduction and Child Health and Development. Technical input is with Health Canada
-International Affairs Directorate is the primary contact for WHO in Canada
-The Directorate performs a representation and co-ordination function for the Canadian Health Sector – Health -Canada, other federal agencies, the provinces, universities and the NGO sector
-Support increasing involvement by line branches in the technical work of WHO and its programmes (International Agency on Cancer, International Program on Chemical Safety, etc)

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

WHO originally adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR or Regulations) as the International Sanitary Regulations in 1951. Article 21 of the WHO Constitution (1948) empowers the World Health Assembly (the main policy-making organ of WHO) to adopt “regulations” concerning, among other things, infectious disease control; and the World Health Assembly adopted the International Sanitary Regulations under this authority in order to consolidate in one instrument the many international sanitary conventions negotiated since the late nineteenth century. [4] WHO changed the name of the Regulations to the IHR in 1969 and last revised them in 1983 when it removed smallpox from the IHR’s list of diseases. Under Article 22 of the WHO Constitution, Assembly-adopted regulations are binding on all WHO member states except those that notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within a specified time.

The International Health Regulations originally was called the International Sanitary Regulations, and was updated over time. An interesting article on it, by David Fidler.

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

WHA22.46 International Health Regulations
The Twenty- second World Health Assembly,
Having considered the recommendations of the Committee on International Quarantine in its fifteenth
report, Volume A, concerning the special review of the International Sanitary Regulations;
Noting that the Committee on International Quarantine reaffirmed the principles laid down in its fourteenth report, Volume II;
1 See Annex 5.
RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS 23
Noting also that the comments of Member States were considered by the Committee on International Quarantine at its fifteenth meeting when preparing the draft International Health Regulations to replace the existing International Sanitary Regulations,
1. cor1 ENDS the members of the Committee for their work; and
2. ADOPTS this twenty -fifth day of July 1969 the International Health Regulations annexed to this resolution together with Appendices 1 to 6 concerning the forms and certificates, and the rules applying thereto.’
Handb. Res., 10th ed., 1.3.9.3 Fourteenth plenary meeting, 25 July 1969 (Committee on Programme and Budget, sixth report)

1969 World Health Assembly, Boston.
official records, of WHA (Boston, 1969)

What all of this means is that the Committee on International Quarantine, (a subgroup of WHO), has laid out new guidelines for how to conduct a mass quarantine of people. Canada, as a member of the World Health Organization, is bound by these regulations.

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

If you think this issue is limited to Canada, you would be mistaken. New Zealand also adopted its version of a Quarantine Act, specifically to be compliant with the 1969 IHR.

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

Australia’s International Health Obligations
The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) are designed to prevent the international spread of infectious diseases while avoiding interference with international traffic and trade. As a Member State of the World Health Organization (WHO), Australia is obliged to comply with the IHR.

What are the International Health Regulations (2005)?
The IHR are an international legal instrument that is binding on 196 countries across the globe, including all Member States of the WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide.

The IHR, which entered into force on 15 June 2007, require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the WHO. Building on the unique experience of the WHO in global disease surveillance, alert and response, the IHR define the rights and obligations of countries to report public health events, and establish a number of procedures that the WHO must follow in its work to uphold global public health security.

Australia also must comply with the International Health Regulations of 2005. Of course, we must ask WHY these politicians are willingly handing over national sovereignty.

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

There were some changes in the 1995 version. However, I haven’t been able to find a version of it online. In any event, since the 2005 version is in effect, that matters more.

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

FOREWORD
A central and historic responsibility for the World Health Organization (WHO) has been the management of the global regime for the control of the international spread of disease. Under Articles 21(a) and 22, the Constitution of WHO confers upon the World Health Assembly the authority to adopt regulations “designed to prevent the international spread of disease” which, after adoption by the Health Assembly, enter into force for all WHO Member States that do not affirmatively opt out of them within a specified time period.

A quote from the foreword of the 2005 edition of the International Health Regulations. No comment needed here.

There are 3 versions of the IHR: (a) 1969; (b) 1995; and (c) 2005. It’s predecessor was the International Sanitation Regulations, created in 1951.

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

What are the International Health Regulations?
.
The International Health Regulations (2005), or IHR (2005), represents a binding international legal agreement involving 196 countries across the globe, including all the Member States of WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide. The purpose and scope of the IHR (2005) is to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.

In case this wasn’t clear from the last several sections, the international health regulations ARE in fact, legally binding on all member states.

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

APPENDIX 1
STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
REGULATIONS (2005) 1
Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on
15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands….

Appendix I, on page 59, lists all of the parties to the International Health Regulations.

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Article 23
The Health Assembly shall have authority to make recommendations to Members with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.

Article 33
The Director-General or his representative may establish a procedure by agreement with Members, permitting him, for the purpose of discharging his duties, to have direct access to their various departments, especially to their health administrations and to national health organizations, governmental or non-governmental. He may also establish direct relations with international organizations whose activities come within the competence of the Organization. He shall keep regional offices informed on all matters involving their respective areas.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members.

CHAPTER XVI – RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=7

The Constitution of the World Health Organization is listed in this book of basic documents. To sum up some of the main points:

(a) WHO has the authority to set regulation on quarantine matters
(b) WHO has authority over pharmaceutical matters
(c) WHO and its staff have legal indemnification
(d) WHO and its staff have access to national health data.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

The Paul Martin Liberals introduced Bill C-12, commonly known as the “Quarantine Act”. It passed 249-54, with only the Bloc Quebecois voting against it. It’s not a stretch to see what this was: the Federal Government domestically implementing regulations required by a supra-national body.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/meeting-4/notice
quarantine.act.dec.8.2004.hearings

Must be quite the coincidence that the Federal Government was conducting hearings into passing a Quarantine Act, around the same time the World Health Organization was updating its International Health Regulations. It’s almost like they coordinated on it.

Of course, there have been some modifications to the Quarantine Act over the years, but same principles remain intact.

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

At the historic 73rd World Health Assembly in May, Member States adopted a landmark resolution that called on WHO to initiate an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the lessons learned from the international health response to COVID-19.

Noting resolution EB146.R10 (2020) on strengthening preparedness for health emergencies: implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005), and reiterating the obligation for all States parties to fully implement and comply with the International Health Regulations (2005);

That’s right, the May 2020 Convention called for all nations to comply with their MANDATORY obligations under the IHR. “Obligation” means that it isn’t optional.

1. CALLS FOR, in the spirit of unity and solidarity, the intensification of cooperation and collaboration at all levels in order to contain and control the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its impact;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES the key leadership role of WHO and the fundamental role of the United Nations system in catalysing and coordinating the comprehensive global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the central efforts of Member States therein;

3. EXPRESSES its highest appreciation of, and support for, the dedication, efforts and sacrifices, above and beyond the call of duty of health professionals, health workers and other relevant frontline workers, as well as the WHO Secretariat, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic;

4. CALLS FOR the universal, timely and equitable access to, and fair distribution of, all quality, safe, efficacious and affordable essential health technologies and products, including their components and precursors, that are required in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global priority, and the urgent removal of unjustified obstacles thereto, consistent with the provisions of relevant international treaties, including the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the flexibilities within the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health;

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(4) to provide support to countries upon their request, in accordance with their national context, in support of the continued safe functioning of the health system in all relevant aspects necessary for an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing epidemics, and the uninterrupted and safe provision of population- and individual-level services, for, among other matters: communicable diseases, including through undisrupted vaccination programmes, and for neglected tropical diseases, noncommunicable diseases, mental health, mother and child health and sexual and reproductive health; and to promote improved nutrition for women and children;

Yes, they absolutely had to throw in a pledge to keep abortion accessible to all. If this “virus” is so deadly, why exactly are we pushing to kill more kids, and at a faster rate?

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(5) to support countries, upon request, in developing, implementing and adapting relevant national response plans to COVID-19, by developing, disseminating and updating normative products and technical guidance, learning tools, data and scientific evidence for COVID-19 responses, including to counter misinformation and disinformation, as well as malicious cyber activities, and to continue to work against substandard and falsified medicines and medical products;

Countering “misinformation and disinformation”? One can’t help but be reminded of Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, which called for defunding, and ultimately silencing critics of the population replacement agenda. Presumably this time those people are the ones questioning the official narrative.

https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly
ihr.may.2020.who.convention.free.speech

Aside from the self-congratulatory nature of the resolution, it is actually quite alarming, some of the contents within it.

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

To repeat a point made earlier, the International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are MANDATORY. They are binding on all member states, which Canada is one.

The Quarantine Act brought in by the Martin Liberals seems like a way to domestically implement what the WHO was doing globally. The timing is too coincidental, and they all speak the same. The Quarantine Act also specifies that it is binding both on Ottawa, and the Provinces.

Given the lies and contradictions coming from our officials, nothing they say can be trusted. All of this comes across as a means to implement a larger social agenda.

It’s not limited to Canada either. Two of the examples posted are Australia and New Zealand, nations similar in many ways to us.

Posted on

Child Exploitation, And Other Private Members’ Bills

Private Member’s Bill C-219, introduced by John Nater, would have raised the criminal penalties for child sexual exploitation, and sexual exploitation of a child with a disability. This is one of several interesting bills pending before Parliament.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mandatory Minimums For Child Exploitation

Criminal Code
1 Paragraph 153(1.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
2 Paragraphs 153.‍1(1)‍(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
.
3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 286.‍1:
Aggravating circumstance — person with a disability
286.‍11 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in subsection 286.‍1(1) or (2), it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability.

This bill, if passed, would have amended the criminal code, and made sexual exploitation an offence with a mandatory 1 year minimum jail sentence, even if it was tried summarily. Furthermore, it would have added a 1 year minimum to exploitation (summarily or by indictment), if the victim had a disability.

While 1 year is still very lenient, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Bills from Private Members often go nowhere, but this should be an issue everyone can agree on.

Interestingly, this bill was brought up in the last Parliament — Bill C-424 — but never got past first reading. Again, it should be something that everyone can agree is beneficial to society.

3. Property Rights From Expropriation

Expropriation Act
1 Section 10 of the Expropriation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (11):
Exception
(11.‍1) Subsection (11) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of intention relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice or described in the notice as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.
.
2 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the interest or right to which the notice of confirmation relates is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability, regardless of whether or not that purpose is referred to in the notice of intention or described in the notice of intention as the primary purpose of the intended expropriation.

Bill C-222 was introduced by Cheryl Gallant, and would prevent the Canadian Government from forcibly taking your land in order to turn it into a heritage site, or in some convoluted effort to fight climate change. It would amend the Expropriation Act to prevent exactly that.

Gallant was also the only MP to vote against the Liberal Motion to formally adopt the Paris Accord. She voted no, while “conservative” either voted for it, or abstained.

4. Quebec Multiculturalism Exemption

Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault introduced Bill C-226, to exempt Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act. Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own heritage and culture. However, Quebec is rather hypocritical in simultaneously pushing theirs on other people.

5. Addressing Environmental Racism

Bill C-230 is to address environmental racism.
I have no words for this Bill by Lenore Zann.

6. Social Justice In Pension Plan

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, taking into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices, including
(a) the commission of human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) the production of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; and
(c) the ordering, controlling or otherwise directing of acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Bill C-231, from Alistair MacGregor, would have cut off CPPIB (the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board), from investing in areas where any of the above are breached. This is a good idea in principle, even if the details are sparse.

7. Ban On Sex-Selective Abortion

cpc.policy.declaration

Bill C-233, from Cathay Wagantall, would make it illegal to abort children because of sex. In short, this means targeting female babies. However, it isn’t clear how this would work. Article 70 in the policy declaration says there will be no attempt to pass any abortion legislation, and Article 73 says that foreign aid shouldn’t be given to provide for abortion.

So killing children is okay, as long as it’s done in Canada, and the gender of the baby is not a factor. Makes sense to me.

8. Lowered Voting Age, Conversion Therapy

There are currently two bills: C-240, and S-219, which would lower the voting age to 16. Aside from being a bad idea, this seems a little redundant. There is also S-202, to ban conversion therapy. So, we want 16 year olds to be able to vote, and decide what gender they want to be.

9. National School Food Program

If you want the school to become more of a parent, there is Bill C-201 by Don Davies to do exactly that. It was previously Bill C-446. Now, let’s look at some non-Canadian content.

10. California Lowering Penalties For Anal

https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1291406895878553600

San Francisco – Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 145 to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry. Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

Until recently, that sex offender registration was for life, even though the sex was consensual. Under 2017 legislation authored by Senator Wiener, registration. Is for a minimum of 10 years, still a harsh repercussion for consensual sex.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, in 2019 introduced Senate Bill SB 145, to stop men who have sex with 15, 16, and 17 year old boys from automatically becoming registered sex offenders. Here is the text of the bill.

The Bill has predictably received plenty of backlash. Criticism of it, however, has been dismissed as homophobia and anti-Semitism. Of course, a better alternative might be to RAISE the age of consent to 18 all around. That would do more to protect children.

If this seems familiar, it should. In 2016, Trudeau introduced Bill C-32, to lower the age of consent for anal sex. Eventually, it was slipped into Bill C-75, which not only reduced the penalties for many child sex crimes, but for terrorism offences as well.

11. New Zealand Loosens Abortion Laws

While New Zealand claimed to be in the middle of a pandemic, Parliament figured now is a good time to have easier access to abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Some really conflicting views on life. See Bill 310-1. Also, their “internet harm” bill seems like a threat to free speech.

Of course, that is not all that New Zealand has been up to lately. There is also taking people to quarantine camps, and denying them leave if they don’t consent to being tested. Yet, the PM thinks that critics are “conspiracy theorists”.

12. Know What Is Really Going On

Yes, this article was a bit scattered, but meant to bring awareness to some of the issues going on behind the scenes. The mainstream media (in most countries) will not cover important issues in any meaningful way. As such, people need to spend the time researching for themselves.

Bill introduced privately can actually be more interesting than what Governments typically put forward. Though they often don’t pass, they are still worth looking at.

Posted on

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Bill C-79

(Government link for TPP, now referred to as CPTPP)

(Canada’s Bill C-79, October 2018)

Trading Partner Brunei, Stoning Gays

On a side note, Brunei, a small nation governed by Islamic law, announced it would stone gays to death in accordance with religious law. It seems extremely hypocritical for the virtue-signaling Prime Minister Trudeau to have such a trading partner. However, under public pressure, Brunei has apparently backed down from the measure.

1.Portions Of Bill C-79

Causes of action under sections 9 to 13
.
8 (1) No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind are to be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of sections 9 to 13 or an order made under those sections.

Causes of action under Agreement
.
(2) No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind are to be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.
.
Exception
.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to causes of action arising out of, and proceedings taken under, Section B of Chapter 9 or Article 11.‍22 of the TPP.

Right away is a red flag. If you are a private party, there may be instances where litigation is required to protect your interests (from unfair trade practices perhaps). However, the wording makes it clear that legal action is not possible here unless the Attorney General signs off on it.

As for the exceptions, Chapter 9, Section B refers to disputes among investors, and encourages the parties to resolve the problems themselves. Article 11.22 outlines dispute mechanisms for financial services.

Payment of expenditures
.
12 The Government of Canada is to pay its appropriate share of the aggregate of
(a) any expenditures incurred by or on behalf of the Commission,
(b) the general expenses incurred by the committees, working groups and other bodies established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to representatives on the Commission and those committees and to members of those working groups and other bodies, and
(c) the expenses incurred by panels and arbitration tribunals established under the Agreement and the remuneration and expenses payable to the panellists on those panels, to arbitrators and to any experts retained by those panels or arbitration tribunals.

Not only will Canada be forced to pay its “share” for Commission expenses, but will in effect pay to set up an alternative quasi-judicial system. Not only will Canada have to pay for that, but legal and expert expenses, and any judgements awarded against.

Orders — Article 28.‍20 of TPP
.
13 (1) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of suspending benefits in accordance with Article 28.‍20 of the TPP, by order, do any of the following:
(a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to another party to the Agreement or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party under the Agreement or any federal law;
(b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law, with respect to a party to the Agreement other than Canada or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to a party to the Agreement other than Canada or to goods, service suppliers, investors or investments of investors of that party; or
(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

The Governor in Council can apparently:

  • Suspend rights or privileges
  • modify or suspend application of Federal law
  • extend Federal law to others not previously included
  • Do anything else deemed necessary

Without clarification or at least guidance of the topic, this is extremely vague. Worse, is the Governor in Council can make these changes without requiring consent of the public.

Most of the rest of the Bill goes into detail about how tariffs on many different items will be reduced to zero.

However, like with most free trade agreements, Bill C-79 does not address an important topic: protection of jobs for people at home. That will be addressed later.

2. Sections Of CPTPP Text

While the agreement is very long, let’s look mainly at Article 9, as it has some of the more unsettling information in it. To be blunt, it removes nations’ abilities to protect their people from foreign competition. The downside to free trade.

Article 9.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

This is basically the same language used in NAFTA, where no preference could be given to host countries. In short, it doesn’t matter if another party can outbid and outcompete you. Terms just as favourable must be given.

Article 9.5: Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment referred to in this Article does not encompass international dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms, such as those included in Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement).

This is much the same idea. If you treat a non-party (someone outside the agreement) a certain way, then a party within the agreement must get at least the same, if not better, treatment.

A bit misleading is the use of the term investment. Most people think of stocks and bonds as investments. While true, this agreement considers basically anything to be an investment. Here is a quote from the definitions section of Article 9.

investment means every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, or the assumption of risk. Forms that an investment may take include:
(a) an enterprise;
(b) shares, stock and other forms of equity participation in an enterprise;
(c) bonds, debentures, other debt instruments and loans;
(d) futures, options and other derivatives;
(e) turnkey, construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts;
(f) intellectual property rights;
(g) licences, authorisations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to the Party’s law; and
(h) other tangible or intangible, movable or immovable property, and related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges,

Beyond the traditional sense of investments there is more. Any business itself, business contracts, property, or tangible or intangible items are also considered investments.

And what about countries wanting to nationalise (take public ownership), of their “investments”? Remember, under the definition provided, an investment is pretty much anything.

Article 9.8: Expropriation and Compensation
1. No Party shall expropriate or nationalise a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation (expropriation), except:
(a) for a public purpose
(b) in a non-discriminatory manner;
(c) on payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and
(d) in accordance with due process of law.
2. Compensation shall:
(a) be paid without delay;
(b) be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place (the date of expropriation);
(c) not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier; and
(d) be fully realisable and freely transferable.
3. If the fair market value is denominated in a freely usable currency, the compensation paid shall be no less than the fair market value on the date of expropriation, plus interest at a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
4. If the fair market value is denominated in a currency that is not freely usable, the compensation paid, converted into the currency of payment at the market rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment, shall be no less than:
(a) the fair market value on the date of expropriation, converted into a freely usable currency at the market rate of exchange prevailing on that date; plus
(b) interest, at a commercially reasonable rate for that freely usable currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.

This actually does make some sense, as it provides some protections to companies and insures that their property won’t just be converted into the government’s.

However, the wording is such that any legitimate measures a nation might make to go about its business might be construed as “expropriating” or as “nationalising”. The language seems worded poorly on purpose.

And it doesn’t mention that nations have legitimate interests in protecting the jobs of its people, and the local economy. Governments are supposed to protect their people first and foremost.

Article 9.9: Transfers
1. Each Party shall permit all transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay into and out of its territory. Such transfers include:
(a) contributions to capital;
(b) profits, dividends, interest, capital gains, royalty payments, management fees, technical assistance fees and other fees;
(c) proceeds from the sale of all or any part of the covered investment or from
the partial or complete liquidation of the covered investment;
(d) payments made under a contract, including a loan agreement;
(e) payments made pursuant to Article 9.7 (Treatment in Case of Armed Conflict or Civil Strife) and Article 9.8 (Expropriation and Compensation); and
(f) payments arising out of a dispute.

Pull the covered investments freely and without delay? Again, almost anything is an investment under this agreement. This actually has the potential to do serious harm. Businesses wishing to leave could pull all of their “investments” and drain the country of its wealth quite quickly.

Article 9.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to a senior management position a natural person of any particular nationality.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

This ignores a basic reality. People are loyal first and foremost to their homes and their tribes. Do people want a bunch of foreigners, with in-group preference for their homelands to be controlling so much? Probably not, but free trade deals do not deal with nations, but “economic zones”.

Inserting a condition that it not “materially impair” is vague and open to interpretation. As such, it seems almost worthless.

Article 9 is the most troubling in the agreement. But it is worth addressing one point in Article 28, which covers dispute resolution.

Article 28.4: Choice of Forum
1. If a dispute regarding any matter arises under this Agreement and under another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are party, including the WTO Agreement, the complaining Party may select the forum in which to settle the dispute.
2. Once a complaining Party has requested the establishment of, or referred a matter to, a panel or other tribunal under an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, the forum selected shall be used to the exclusion of other fora.

An interesting detail, parties filing complaints can shop around. There is no fixed place to do so. While this sounds fine on the surface, such could be open to gaming the system.

3. Potential For Huge Job Losses

Companies close down and new ones start up. That is normal in a capitalist society. However, free trade deals in general pose a complication. When it becomes more advantageous (ie “cheaper”) to produce a good in another country, there is always a risk. What will stop a company from closing down, laying off all its staff, and relocating in the foreign nation? Legally, nothing, at least in many cases.

The previous pieces on NAFTA addressed some on the downsides to free trade deals. The CPTPP would likely cause the same sorts of issues.

Let’s use the United States as an example. It lost 3.4 million jobs to China between 2001 and 2017 due to “liberalized trade”. Further, another 879,000 jobs have been lost as a direct result of NAFTA.

Beyond the direct job losses, trade deals have the effect of driving down wages. This is especially true for manufacturing jobs, which are traditionally well paid. The reason is leverage. If a company can threaten to relocate in order to pay its (new) workers much less, then current employees can be forced to accept significantly less compensation. One reason tariffs are applied to goods is to counter the vast discrepancies that can exist between nations.

In very lopsided trading arrangements, the benefits are not equal. Again, referring to the US, trade deficits can balloon very quickly. While some surplus or deficit is inevitable, the trading relations cannot continue unless the parties benefit fairly equally. Large trade deficits drain wealth from a nation. This is money being taken out of the country and not being spent on people here.

The CPTPP addresses NONE of these issues. Is this a form of protectionism? Yes, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

4. Conclusions Regarding C-79 & CPTPP

NAFTA was tricky enough, even with just 3 nations, all on one continent. CPTPP has more, and it covers a much larger geographic area. The wealth discrepancies are even larger.

While this is touted as an economy growth tool, the CPTPP doesn’t indicate at all how the citizens will benefit. Under the “National Treatment” provisions, foreigners must be given the same considerations as locals. If it becomes more economical to lay off people and move assets, then it’s done. There can be no protection for locals, which is what a government should be doing.

Free trade agreements tend to create a “race to the bottom”. If it becomes more profitable to ship work and jobs to another country, it is done. Locals will have to accept far less in order to compete, driving down their standards of living.

Communities benefit when there is work and wealth. Exporting it for overall economic growth is cold, and reduces people to mere cogs in a machine.

Difficult to see how average people will benefit from CPTPP.

(1) ttps://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9970461&View=5
(2) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/index.aspx?lang=eng
(3) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
(5) https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
(6) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/

Note: After the US withdrew from the agreement, it was renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress