Category: Social Media

Posted on

Kulvinder Gill’s Frivolous And Vexatious Claim Dismissed As A SLAPP

“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”

“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart

A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.

Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.

The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).

In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.

To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.

A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure

There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.

  • Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
  • Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
  • Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defense
  • Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
  • Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process

Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.

In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).

It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:

  1. the proceeding has substantial merit, and
  2. the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
  3. the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.

The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.

Justification
.
22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges

Fair comment
.
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Fair comment
.
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.

Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
.
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.

It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.

Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?

In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.

The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.

The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.

What About Costs For The Defendants?

In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.

There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.

It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.

The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.

What Exactly Started All Of This?

In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.

These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.

One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.

Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.

After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.

This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.

If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.

(1) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(2) Gill & Lamba Defamation Lawsuit
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-lawsuit-thrown-out-after-anti-vaccine-doctors-sue-over-challenges-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doctor-who-said-canada-doesnt-need-covid-vaccine-calls-online-critics-hyenas-in-6-8m-libel-suit

Posted on

Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Open Source Intelligence Gathering, And Global Counter-Intelligence In Action

This piece on the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a continuation of the last one. Now, let’s look a little more into who’s doing this, and what they actually want.

This may seem a bit ironic (or stupid), doing open source intelligence gathering on an intelligence gathering outlet. Nonetheless, the public does need to be aware of what is going on.

According to its latest tax return, the ISD took in about 5.6 million British Pounds, almost exclusively from “charitable” sources. That also describes the bulk of their spending. Perhaps the Government funding is simply classified as charities, or is being funneled through them

If you think these people aren’t monitoring what you post, and using it as evidence in their reports, consider some of their profiles. All of this information came directly from them.

In its Twitter biography, the ISD describes itself as “fiercely independent”. This is downright disingenuous, considering the partners it works with, and the sources of its funding. This is no more independent than the heavily subsidized media outlets that are everywhere in Canada. See the bottom links for more details.

Kata Balint is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, primarily working on the analysis of the climate change debate in Hungary, using digital analysis tools and open source intelligence methods. Kata’s main areas of research are political radicalisation and extremism, with a focus on far-right groups and movements; disinformation and conspiracy theories; and political attitudes and behaviour. Kata previously worked as an Analyst in the Radicalisation and Extremism Programme of Political Capital, an independent research institute based in Hungary, where she co-authored a number of research papers and was involved in radicalisation prevention activities. She gained her first professional experiences working in the Office of the Hungarian Parliament and in the European Parliament. Kata completed her postgraduate studies in Political Psychology at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK, and she holds an undergraduate degree in Social Sciences with majors in International Studies and Communication from Roskilde University, Denmark.

Chloe Colliver is Head of Digital Policy and Strategy at ISD, where she leads a global team of analysts studying disinformation and extremism online, including programmes of work focusing on the German, European Parliamentary, UK, Swedish and US Elections. She has worked on the development of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and has provided expert testimony to the UK Home Affairs Select Committee, the Swedish, New Zealand, Canadian, French and German governments on digital policy and tech regulation. She has been featured at CNN, the BBC, Sky News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Wired and Bloomberg. She is the co-author of ISD reports Spin Cycle: Information Laundering on Facebook, Developing a Civil Society Response to Online Manipulation, The 101 of Disinformation Detection, Click Here For Outrage: Disinformation in the European Parliamentary Elections 2019, The First 100 Days: Coronavirus and Crisis Management on Social Media Platforms, and Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Chloe is a Yale Mellon Fellow and sits on the Advisory Board for Accountable Tech.

Milo Comerford is Head of Policy & Research, Counter Extremism, leading ISD’s work developing innovative research approaches and policy responses to extremism. Milo regularly briefs senior decision makers around the world on the challenge posed by extremist ideologies, and advises governments and international agencies on building effective strategies for countering extremism. He was previously Senior Analyst at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where he led major research projects on Salafi-jihadi propaganda, international educational responses to extremism, and the transnational far right. His writing and research features frequently in international media and he has made recent broadcast appearances on BBC News, Sky News and Al Jazeera.

Jiore Craig is the Head of Political Integrity and Digital Communication at ISD. She has extensive international experience, previously spending eight years helping elected officials, political leaders, media organisations, academic institutions and civic society organisations across five continents to measure the impact of digital communication and influence campaigns on public opinion and communicate effectively in the wake of the threat of disinformation around elections. She was previously a Vice President at a global political consulting firm, where she built a digital practice serving Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the US. Jiore’s work informed the design of major coalition efforts to counter disinformation in the 2020 US and 2019 European Parliament elections. Her work is cited in The Washington Post, New York Magazine, The L.A. Times, The New Yorker, and she has been a featured guest on the election podcast, Pod Save America.

Jacob Davey is Head of Research & Policy of Far-right and Hate Movements. His research focuses on the role of digital communications in inter-communal conflict, internet culture, online hate speech and the international far-right. He has led a number of projects piloting novel models for identifying extremist conversation online as well as interventions to counter this phenomenon. He has advised national and local policymakers on right-wing extremism, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, and has lead trainings with frontline practitioners on the mobilisation strategies of extremist groups. He has provided commentary on extremism-related issues in a number of platforms including The Guardian, The Independent, and The BBC, and also sits as a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. He is the co-author of ISD reports Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, The Interplay Between Australia’s Political Fringes on the Right and Left: Online Messaging on Facebook, The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram, An Online Environmental Scan of Right-wing Extremism in Canada, The Fringe Insurgency – Connectivity, Convergence and Mainstreaming of the Extreme Right, Counter-Conversations: A model for direct engagement with individuals showing signs of radicalisation online, “Mainstreaming Mussolini” – How the Extreme Right Attempted to ‘Make Italy Great Again’ in the 2018 Italian Election, ‘The Great Replacement’: The Violent Consequences of Mainstreamed Extremism, and An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists.

Jasmine El-Gamal is a Senior Manager for Africa, Middle East and Asia (AMEA) at ISD, where she is responsible for overseeing prevention of violent extremism (PVE) research and programming. From 2015-2020, Jasmine was a Senior Fellow with the Middle East program at the Atlantic Council, where she focused primarily on U.S. policies in the Middle East. From 2013-2015, Jasmine served as a Special Assistant to three consecutive Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, where she advised on national security issues. From 2008-2013, Jasmine served as a Middle East advisor at the Pentagon, where she served three Secretaries of Defense. During her tenure, she prepared and staffed the Secretary of Defense on foreign trips and during Congressional briefings. She covered issues related to Iraq, Syria, the Arab Spring and ISIS, among others, and served as the Acting Chief of Staff for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. From 2014-2016, Jasmine served as a translator and cultural advisor to the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where she provided briefings on Islam and Arab culture to incoming military officers in advance of their participation on the Review Boards. She conducted over 100 detainee interviews during her time at GTMO regarding their background and journey to Afghanistan and ensured the integrity of their testimony during their review boards, many of which resulted in the illumination of their unjust detention. In 2003, Jasmine served as a translator with a U.S. Civil Affairs team responsible for reconstruction in Southern Iraq, helping to facilitate communication and cooperation between U.S. forces and the local population in rebuilding the area. Her commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, Newsweek, Time Magazine, CNN, Al Jazeera, Al Hurra, L’Orient du Jour, Sawt al Azhar, Al Masry Al Youm and other international outlets.

Aoife Gallagher is an Analyst on ISD’s Digital Analysis Unit, focusing on the intersection between far-right extremism, disinformation and conspiracy theories and using a mixture of data analysis, open source intelligence and investigative techniques to understand the online ecosystem where these ideas flourish and spread. Previously, Aoife was a journalist with the online news agency, Storyful. She is co-author of the ISD reports The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory and Profit and Protest: How Facebook is struggling to enforce limits on ads spreading hate, lies and scams about the Black Lives Matter protests. Aoife has completed an MA in Journalism.

Cooper Gatewood is a Senior Digital Research Manager within ISD’s Digital Research Unit, focusing on quantitative research into the spread of hateful and polarising narratives online, and how they are leveraged by extremist actors. Cooper is currently contributing to ISD’s research on disinformation campaigns, particularly those aimed to influence and disrupt election processes. He also manages on the Online Civil Courage Initiative in France, coordinating activities to support civil society’s response to hate and extremism online. In addition, Cooper conducts ongoing evaluation of a number of ISD’s programmes, including Be Internet Citizens and Young Digital Leaders. Cooper also develops monitoring and evaluation frameworks for a number of ISD’s education projects. Previously, Cooper worked at Portland, where he advised clients from the non-profit and government sectors on their media engagement and social media strategies. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook, La pandémie de COVID-19: terreau fertile de la haine en ligne, Fostering Civic Responses to Online Harms, Promouvoir le civisme en ligne face aux malveillances à l’ère du numérique, Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud, Mapping hate in France: A panoramic view of online discourse, and Building Digital Citizenship in France: Lessons from the Sens Critique project. Cooper holds a Masters of International Affairs from Columbia University and a Masters of International Security from Sciences Po and is fluent in Spanish and French, as well as speaking proficient Japanese.

Jakob Guhl is a Manager at ISD, where he works within the Digital Research Unit and with ISD Germany. His research focuses on the far-right, Islamist extremism, hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. He is a frequent commentator on German radio and broadcast, including Deutschlandfunk, Tagesthemen, NDR and Radio Eins. Jakob has been invited to present his research about online hate to the German Ministry of the Justice and provided evidence to the German Minister of the Interior and the German Family Minister on how to strengthen prevention against right-wing extremism and antisemitism. His research has been featured in Die Zeit, The Guardian, DW, The Telegraph, CNN, Euronews, Coda Story, Vice, Politico, New Republic and Die Welt, among others. Additionally, he has published articles in the “Journal for Deradicalisation”, “Demokratie gegen Menschenfeindlichkeit”, Taz, Der Standard, GNET and co-authored an essay for an edited volume of the Munich Residence Theatre about the origins of contemporary political anger. He is the co-author of ISD reports Crisis and Loss of Control: German-Language Digital Extremism in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Hosting the ‘Holohoax’: A Snapshot of Holocaust Denial Across Social Media, A Safe Space to Hate: White Supremacist Mobilisation on Telegram and The Online Ecosystem of the German Far-Right. Jakob holds an MA in Terrorism, Security and Society from King’s College London.

Sasha Havlicek is Co-Founder and CEO of ISD, having spearheaded ISD’s pioneering research and data analysis, digital education, policy advisory, training, tech and communications programmes. With a background in conflict resolution and an expertise in extremism, digital information operations and electoral interference, she has advised a range of governments at the highest levels and has spearheaded partnerships with the UN, EU Commission and Global Counter-Terrorism Forum. She has also worked with the private and civil society sectors to promote innovation, including developing major programmes run in partnership with Google, FB and Microsoft. Sasha serves as an expert advisor to the UK Counter-Extremism Commission and the Mayor of London’s counter-extremism programme, and is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Sasha previously served as Senior Director at the EastWest Institute where she led conflict resolution programming. Sasha has testified before US Congress, the UK Parliament and is a regular commentator in the media (CNN, BBC, Channel 4 News and other networks).

Jennie King is a Senior Policy Manager at ISD. She supports programme design, policy outreach and strategy across the organisation. Jennie previously served as MENA Regional Director Arts, Assistant Country Director Egypt and Co-Director Hungary for the British Council, the UK’s international body for cultural relations. She also served as an Attaché for the Guatemalan Diplomatic Mission. She is the co-author of the ISD report Hoodwinked: Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Facebook. Jennie read Arabic and Spanish at Pembroke College, Cambridge, receiving a Foundation Scholarship and the Marie Shamma’a Frost Prize for Oriental Studies.

Daniel Maki is a Senior Manager in charge of open-source intelligence (OSINT) research for ISD’s Digital Research Unit, as well as serving as ISD’s Digital Risk Officer. Daniel leads a team of practitioners in the collection and analysis of intelligence related to investigations, ethnographic research, crisis response, and security monitoring. He also regularly serves as a subject-matter expert in intelligence collection and analysis within ISD and on behalf of ISD’s key partners. As ISD’s Digital Risk Officer, Daniel is responsible for tackling emerging digital risks and identifying operational security threats encountered in the course of research projects and investigations. Daniel has worked in the intelligence community for ten years as an investigator and intelligence analyst, conducting investigations into a wide variety of matters, including financial crime, insider threats, counterintelligence, espionage, organized crime and corruption, workplace misconduct, cybercrime, terrorism, and geopolitical conflict.

Ciaran O’Connor is an Analyst at ISD, working in the Research and Policy unit. Ciaran specialises in using open-source research to track and monitor disinformation and extremism online, with a particular focus on far-right activity and communication across open and closed networks and platforms. Ciaran is currently working on multiple ISD projects in analysing the intersection of misinformation and extremism with COVID-19 on social media. Ciaran previously worked as a journalist on the investigations team at Storyful, a social media news agency that specialises in the verification and analysis of amateur footage and misinformation online. He is the co-author of ISD reports The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook and Disinformation briefing: Narratives around Black Lives Matter and voter fraud.

Christian Schwieter is a Project Manager at ISD Germany, leading the German-language research project on far-right activity on alternative and emerging online platforms. At ISD, Christian also co-led the pilot phase of the Digital Policy Lab, a new intergovernmental working group focused on charting the online policy path forward to prevent and counter disinformation, hate speech and extremism. Previously, Christian worked as a researcher for the Computational Propaganda Project at the Oxford Internet Institute, where he co-authored reports on state-backed information operations relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2019, Christian was the Specialist Adviser on Disinformation Matters for the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee at the House of Commons. Christian holds an MSc in Social Science of the Internet from the University of Oxford and a BA from Leiden University College The Hague.

Henry Tuck is Head of Policy & Programmes at ISD for work across Europe and the Five Eyes countries. He is responsible for the overall management of the Institute’s research programme, including oversight of all publications, research methods, and ethics across a variety of topics, from disinformation to the far-right and extremism online. Henry also leads ISD’s policy-focused work to counter online harms in collaboration with a range of key stakeholders, advising leading governments, international organisations and major private sector tech companies. He is the co-author of ISD reports An imprecise science: Assessing interventions for the prevention, disengagement and de-radicalisation of left and right-wing extremists, The Counter-Narrative Monitoring & Evaluation Handbook, Shooting in the right direction: Anti-ISIS Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq, and The Counter-narrative Handbook. Henry holds a Masters in International Conflict Studies from Kings College London, and a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Durham University.

Several profiles actually refer to “open source intelligence gathering”. Do you realize what this means? Online posts and comments are being tracked, documented, archived, and used for later research. It’s no surprise that so many have ties to Governments around the world, and that they appear as “experts” in the mainstream media quite often. This is (one of) the groups being paid to push certain narratives.

The ISD promotes the work of Marianna Spring, who does “anti-misinformation” efforts on behalf of the Gates-funded British Broadcasting Corporation.

The ISD has teamed up with social media influencers to “manage the narrative” around the latest climate change conference in the U.K. Obviously, the lay people are too dumb to think for themselves, and must be told what to believe.

ISD has also written about how Facebook can be more effective at enforcing the bans of people already removed from the network. Considering that Facebook is a major donor and partner, this isn’t nefarious, or any sort of conflict of interest. They’re also going after Tik Tok.

Apparently, the rapid demographic changes in Western countries since the 1960s just happened. There wasn’t any concerted “replacement agenda“, according to the report from ISD. It’s just some racist conspiracy theory that gets thrown around.

By the way, if you need money and lack much of a soul, the ISD is currency hiring for a few different positions. Apply today!

On a more serious note: these people are doing “open source intelligence gathering”, which means that content being posted is being used for other purposes. There is an agenda here, so truth and source material may not matter, nor would context. In a similar vein, edgy and trolling posts may be taken at face value and used to push certain narratives, like here. It’s not your friends or family you need to worry about, but think tank operatives.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.isdglobal.org/
(2) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/public-health-disinformation/
(3) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/climate-disinformation/
(4) https://www.isdglobal.org/disinformation/conspiracy-networks/
(5) https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/tags-flags-and-banners-evaluating-the-application-of-information-resources-on-vaccine-content-on-tiktok/
(6) https://twitter.com/ISDglobal
(7) https://twitter.com/ISDglobal/status/1460545038723788805
(8) https://twitter.com/shannonpareil/status/1459199605329915905
(9) https://isdglobal.recruitee.com/
(10) INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE – 1141069
(11) https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/the-great-replacement-the-violent-consequences-of-mainstreamed-extremism/
(12) The Great Replacement The Violent Consequences of Mainstreamed Extremism by ISD
(13) https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-chloe-colliver-on-trolling-of-un-migration-pact-for-danish-broadcasting-corporation/

RESOURCES FOR MEDIA ACTING AS COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/public-media-alliance-brussels-declaration-protecting-journalists-media-freedom/
(L) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Partners, Funding

EVEN MORE MEDIA SUBSIDIES
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-1-unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/

Posted on

Institute For Strategic Dialogue (ISD): Government Sponsored Group Combatting “Misinformation”

Ever get the impression that Governments are colluding with social media and NGOs in a program of counter-intelligence? Ever think that there may be a coordinated effort to keep the general public oblivious to what’s really going on in the world? Turns out, there may be something to that.

Credit where it’s due: Stormhaven Media previously addressed the ISD, and some of its nefarious connections. Go check that out for more context.

The Canadian Government briefly mentions the work done by ISD in their group: Rapid Response Mechanism Canada (RRM Canada). This was related to foreign interference during and leading up to the 2019 European Union Parliamentary Elections. ISD is specifically listed in footnote #3.

On that page, there was also concern that anti-abortion sentiments were rising as a result of the language used. In short, calling things what they were amounted to resistance to the pro-death agenga. Also, Ottawa seemed to realize that people were getting wise to globalism and to the prospects of a Muslim takeover. Having a narrative shift makes it harder to sell Government policies.

A program run by Public Service Canada involved implementing the agenda of preventing violent extremism into Canadian schools. Parents, did you know about this?

Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)
This project builds on a long-standing international program, first launched in 2015 through support from Public Safety Canada, designed to give young people the resources to challenge violent extremism in all its forms. Extreme Dialogue is a free resource designed to be delivered by teachers, youth practitioners, external facilitators (including social services and police), or young people themselves, by using films and supporting curriculum materials to learn about the true stories of those affected by violent extremism.
.
This new investment will support bringing the program to approximately 2,000 students between the ages of 14-20 in eight different francophone high schools and CEGEP/colleges in Quebec, and will deliver new and adapted education material and workshops for students, delivered by teachers and practitioners. Teachers and practitioners will be equipped through training delivered by the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRLV).
.
Ultimately, this project aims to build resilience to radicalization leading to violence in youth by providing them with the knowledge, skills and values needed not only to openly discuss, but to also challenge extremism in schools and other settings within their community.

Did parents know that the Federal Government was implementing into their schools the same kind of training that is given to those “peaceful groups” to ensure they don’t commit mass murder? Maybe not letting such people into Canada in the first place would have been a better idea. Perhaps this is done to subconsciously shift the public opinion that this sort of thing should be considered normal. But then, objecting to the forced integration of vastly different groups is probably racist, or something.

Canada also has a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, or CCRS, It’s chaired by Amarnath Amarasingam, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue

In 2013, Public Safety Canada gave ISD $24,372.98 in a sole-sourced contract to “counter violent extremism”. However, the details of this contract were extremely sparse, so we are left to guess about what it actually involved.

Last year, Canadian taxpayers forked over nearly $400,000 to this “independent” group. Seems like an unproductive use of money. But then, it’s hardly the only time we’ve financed our own brainwashing. See the links at the bottom for worse examples of this.

It’s a registered tax-exempt organization in the United States, so more information about its finances is available from the Internal Revenue Service.

Of course, it’s hardly just the Canadian Government (or rather, taxpayers) who are financing this organization. Looking through their website, it’s easy to find the full list of donors and partners. And wow, what a list of organizations this is.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue US (ISD US) is a non-political, not-for-profit corporation registered in the District of Columbia with 501(c)(3) status. It was formed with Articles of Incorporation on 19 August 2009. Whilst the two entities are legally separate, a majority of Board members sit on both boards so that decisions can be taken collectively. You can search for ISD US using tax identification number 27-1282489.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue gGmbH (ISD Germany) is registered with the companies’ registrar in Berlin, registration AG Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 207 328B. It was formed on 19 February 2019 with a Deed and Articles of Association and began operations in 2020. The Managing Directors are Huberta von Voss and Sarah Kennedy.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue France (ISD France) is a legal entity under the status of Association de loi 1901, a status granted to not-for-profit organisations across a range of sectors.

PARTNERS
INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS

  • Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
  • ARENA @ Johns Hopkins University
  • Cardiff University
  • Centre for the Analysis of Social Media (CASM)
  • Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
  • Deakin University
  • Demos
  • Fair Fight Action
  • Geneva Center for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
  • German Marshall Fund Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Global Center on Cooperative Security
  • Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)
  • Global Disinformation Index
  • Hans-Bredow Institute
  • Harvard Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society
  • Institut Montaigne
  • Institute for Economics and Peace
  • McCain Institute
  • MIT Media Cloud
  • Ontario Tech University
  • Sussex University Computer Science Department
  • United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (UNCTED)
  • Victoria University
  • West Asia-North Africa (WANA) Institute

FUNDERS (2018-PRESENT)

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • British Council
  • Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF)
  • Europäisches Forum Alpbach
  • Gemeinnützige Hertie Stiftung
  • Gen Next Foundation
  • Hirondelle Foundation
  • International Republican Institute (IRI)
  • Mercator Stiftung Germany
  • Mercator Stiftung Switzerland
  • National Democratic Institute
  • Omidyar Group
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Robert Bosch Stiftung
  • United States Institute for Peace

Governments & Multilateral Organisations

  • Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and trade (DFAT)
  • Australian Department for Home Affairs
  • Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST)
  • Council of Europe
  • Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration
  • Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria, Australia
  • Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs
  • Dutch Ministry of the Interior
  • European Commission
  • Finnish Interior Ministry
  • German Federal Agency for Civic Engagement
  • German Federal Foreign Office (Auswaertiges-Amt)
  • German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV)
  • Global Affairs Canada
  • Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)
  • Ministry of Justice and Security, The Netherlands
  • New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)
  • Norwegian Ministry of Children & Families (MCF)
  • Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security
  • Public Safety Canada
  • Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
  • Swedish Ministry of Integration
  • Swedish Ministry of Justice
  • Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)
  • UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)
  • UK Home Office
  • UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • US Department for Homeland Security (DHS)
  • US State Department

Private Sector

  • Audible
  • Facebook
  • GIFCT
  • Google
  • Google.org
  • Jigsaw
  • Microsoft
  • YouTube

Now, just because the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is financed by numerous Western Governments, social media companies, think tanks, and NGOs like the Open Society and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there’s no reason to be concerned. It’s not like there is any ideology that prevents truth and objective analysis from being published.

It’s hardly surprising that the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Open Society are claiming that racism and hate are on the rise. When NGOs are pushing open borders policies, it tends to provoke considerable backlash.

ISD lists conditions it imposes for any donations that are offered. While they sound fine on the surface, it needs to be said that it will only take money from groups who are on board with its ideology.

(1) The funder demonstrates respect for and adherence to universal human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law, and does not support or condone extremism or terrorism
(2) The funder does not conduct activities or implement policies that promote violence, hatred or prejudice on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age or disability, and does not seek to deflect criticism from their involvement in any of the above by funding ISD
(3) The funding will help to challenge extremism, polarisation and disinformation and will support ISD in its pursuit of its charitable objectives
(4) The funder does not attempt to influence ISD’s objectives, policies or decisions, and the funding does not pose a risk to ISD’s independence, either explicitly or implicitly
(5) The funding does not pose a risk of harm to ISD’s reputation, staff, partners or beneficiaries

If one questions of the replacement agenda is real (getting rid of whites in the West), the climate change narrative, the pandemic fear-porn, or censorship in general, ISD will not take money. Rather than foster any true debate or research, it seems that all this group wants is an echo chamber.

Never forget, the Canadian Government has openly talked about passing laws to combat what they call “pandemic misinformation”. While that may be a hard sell, this may be the next best thing, from their perspective.

Now, let’s see the ISD findings in action. Let’s see some fairly mainstream coverage which references the work ISD does. Surely, it will be fully transparent in all of this.

Irish far-right groups have been exploiting online loopholes and using encrypted and largely unmoderated social media sites and messaging apps to mobilise and spread messages of hate throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
.
That’s according to research carried out by the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD), an independent global organisation dedicated to powering solutions to extremism, hate, and disinformation.
.
The study showed that the number of channels and messages created and sent by Irish users of the encrypted messaging app Telegram has increased rapidly, with just 800 messages sent in 2019 compared with over 60,000 this past January.

As just one example of propaganda, the Irish Examiner refers to the ISD as an “independent” organization. Any due diligence would have found out who really funds this group. Pretty hard to be independent when Governments and interested parties are paying the bills.

It’s entirely possible this omission was due to sloppy writing. However, it appears far more likely that this author simply chose to ignore the truth about the ISD, in an attempt to mislead and deceive readers. Looking at his LinkedIn profile suggests willful omissions, as he has a Masters in journalism. He probably should have stuck with being an English teacher.

Don’t worry, the Government is isn’t involved in gaslighting, brainwashing, or otherwise dumbing down the population in order for them to be more compliant. Politicians don’t really get their hands dirty like this. They just pay other people to do it.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.isdglobal.org/
(2) https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/rrm-mrr/european-elections-europeennes.aspx?lang=eng
(3) Open data analysis – European Parliamentary Elections_ Comprehensive Report
(4) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/cc/fpd-en.aspx
(5) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/crss-cltrl-rndtbl/mbrs-en.aspx
(6) Members of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security
(7) ISD Funding Project Descriptions
(8) https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/cntrcts/dtls-en.aspx?id=3462
(9) ISD Disclosure of Contracts Over $10,000
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=institute%20for%20strategic%20dialogue
(12) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch
(13) https://www.isdglobal.org/partnerships-and-funders/
(14) Partnerships and Funders – Institute For Strategic Dialogue
(15) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(16) https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40745154.html
(17) Irish far right groups flocking to encrypted and unmoderated social media sites
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-heaney-28bbb9114/
(19) Steven Heaney _ LinkedIn

RESOURCES FOR MEDIA ACTING AS COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/public-media-alliance-brussels-declaration-protecting-journalists-media-freedom/

EVEN MORE MEDIA SUBSIDIES
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-1-unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/

Posted on

More Grants To Convince Children, Preggers To Take Experimental Shot

This was a topic addressed long ago. However, it seems the latest batch of grants has now been handed out. Be prepared to be sick. Perhaps the most twisted is from Food Allergy Canada: trying to persuade people who already have serious health risks.

INSTITUTION PURPOSE AMOUNT
Actua Empowering youth and teachers through vaccine safety content $50,000
African Communities of Manitoba Inc. ACOMI WE BELONG COMMUNITY VACCINE ADVOCATES PROJECT $50,000
Agence Science-Presse Un journaliste en résidence (titre de travail) $50,000
ASTC Science World Society Science World Vaccine Series $50,000
Athabasca University Accelerating Vaccine Confidence through Youth Co-created Animated Educational Media $50,000
CanAge Pan-Canadian Seniors’ Virtual Vaccine Summit $50,000
Canadian Glycomics Network Supporting national vaccine literacy and education through K-12 classroom tools and interactive digital campaigns $50,000
Carleton University Leveraging Immersive Technologies to Improve Vaccine Confidence Among Parents and Caregivers in Canada $50,000
Chuntoh Education Society Vaccine Outreach During COVID-19 $50,000
The Conversation Canada Research-based journalism by vaccine experts $45,750
Dalhousie University ILA/PLANS Vaccine Promotion and Knowledge Activity $50,000
Discovery Centre Why Immunize: Encouraging Vaccine Confidence in Mi’kmaw Communities $50,000
Food Allergy Canada Encouraging vaccine confidence in Canadians at risk of anaphylaxis $50,000
Laurentian University Addressing vaccine hesitancy in northern Ontario workplaces using a mobile research lab $50,000
Lung Health Foundation Increasing Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccination among Young Canadians $50,000
McGill University Encouraging Vaccine Confidence Among Black Young Adults in Quebec $49,994
Mount Royal University Encouraging Vaccine Confidence in School-aged Children Across Western Canada $49,700
McMaster University Encouraging vaccine confidence among pregnant and breastfeeding Canadians $50,000
McMaster University Immune Nations: The Vaccine Project $45,500
Memorial Univ. of Nfld Curious? We Are! Vaccine Confidence Campaign $35,000
Musée Armand-Frappier Vaccination: tous concernés, tous concertés! $50,000
OCAD University Expanding Printables: Inclusive vaccine tools for refugee and community health $42,470
Public Health Association of BC Kids Boost Immunity $50,000
Public Health Association of BC COVID-19 South Asian Vaccine Confidence Initiative $50,000
Science North Promoting Vaccine Confidence across Northern Ontario $50,000
Sheridan College Equipping Citizens to Promote Vaccine Confidence in Canada $50,000
SickKids Building COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence: Educating the Educators $50,000
SickKids Stop COVID in Kids – School based vaccine education outreach to build trust and empower families $49,680
St. Boniface Hospital Research Youth BIOlab Vaccine Confidence in Youth $49,300
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre A Nudge for COVID Vaccine Confidence $50,000
Syrian Canadian Foundation Arabic-Speaker Vaccination Promotion Program $48,269
The Pas Committee for Women in Crisis (Aurora House – Share the Care) Overcoming vaccine hesitancy $38,420
University of Alberta WISEST: Building Confidence in Vaccines in Girls and Young Women in Canada $46,585
University of British Columbia Promoting Vaccine Confidence in Canada through TikTok $50,000
University of Calgary Vaccine Hesitancy Playbook: A Pragmatic Communication Tool for Primary Care $50,000
University of Calgary Cybermentor Community Arts: Putting the Arts in STEM $50,000
University of Moncton Parlons vaccination : Initiatives visant à sensibiliser la jeunesse francophone du Nouveau-Brunswick envers la vaccination $6,750
University of New Brunswick Vaccines: The myth, the knowledge gap, and the truth $49,473
University of Ottawa Vaccine Confidence Workshops & Events for Youth, Teachers and Families $11,000
University of Saskatchewan Covid-19 Basics/Diagnosis/Treatment $48,300
University of Toronto Training peers in motivational interviewing to increase vaccine confidence among healthcare $49,418
University of Waterloo Reaching Rural: Building vaccine confidence in rural Southwestern Ontario $49,742
University of Waterloo Multimedia, Micro-learning products to promote Vaccine Confidence in target populations $49,770
University of Windsor Students Igniting Vaccine Confidence Program in Windsor-Essex $49,742
University of Windsor Medicine (on) Wheels Benefitting Indigenous-Led Education (MOWBILE) Vaccination Confidence Programme $50,000
University of Windsor Improving the Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccine among the African Population Living in Windsor-Essex County $49,491
University of Windsor Increasing education and vaccine literacy among adults in southwestern Ontario $50,000
Visions of Science Network for Learning Vaccine Confidence in Canada: Focus on racialized and low-income communities $50,000

Isn’t this a great use of taxpayer dollars?

(1) https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/FundingDecisions-DecisionsFinancement/2021/Vaccine_eng.asp

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake
(G) $50,000 Available — Each — For Groups To Target Minorities
(H) Vaccine Community Innovation Challenge
(I) CIHR Using Public Money To Push Vaccines On Society
(J) Heidi Larson, VCP, LSHTM All Getting Funding From Big Pharma

Posted on

The Final Boss: Realizing That You Are The Best Source Of Information And Scrutiny

“We shouldn’t ask who are the people we should be listening to. Instead, we should be wondering how to verify or refute the things we see and hear.”

Anyone who has ever played video games knows that Bowser is the final boss in the world of Super Mario. This article will get into a more abstract type of boss.

A question that comes up surprisingly often on this site is who should readers be following. That’s understandable, given the vast amount and range of information that’s available. Most people don’t want to have to sift through mountains of rubbish to find gold.

That being said, the correct answer is this: people shouldn’t be relying on or following anyone. Those serious about seeing the world as it really is should be scrutinizing everything they encounter. Real truthers should be doing background checks on what information they come across.

Perhaps all of this is idealistic. However, the point of media shouldn’t be indoctrinating or telling people what to think. It should be empowering, and encourage readers, viewers and listeners to seek more. Does this involve work? Yes, but the alternative is never truly being awake.

Several pieces have been posted here to help the more curious types get started with their own research. They will be included at the bottom.

Additionally, there can be valid reasons someone may hold back on some details. It doesn’t have to be nefarious. They may not be sure of certain points. It may be a controversial topic, where doxing, harassment, and deplatforming are real concerns. Being right doesn’t matter much when livelihood is threatened. Yes, there are many gatekeepers, but that isn’t everyone.

This take may be controversial, but here it goes. Reputation and name recognition have little to no correlation to how accurate and in depth a piece may be. Simply knowing who authored it means nothing if the content is misleading. Moreover, reporting that is truthful (but intentionally superficial) is also unhelpful, since the full truth isn’t told.

The best sources of reporting will include all material used. Evidence that supports the publication will be either embedded into articles or video, or the resources will be instantly available. Anyone making serious claims should be eager to demonstrate their validity. Anyone can throw around allegations. It’s far, far more helpful to see what their basis is.

Things get a bit complicated when a piece of media makes important statements about a company, organization or person, but no source material is provided. The question becomes: do we accept this as a fact, or do a little digging to see how truthful and accurate the content is?

It also should be obvious that not all material is equal is value. While well cited articles, videos and podcasts are helpful, nothing beats primary sources. Are friends talking about an important Supreme Court ruling? Ask to see the text of the decision. Concerned about a new bill being introduced? Search the actual legislation, instead of relying on someone’s opinion. Heard horror stories concerning some new treaty? Go read it. Seeing rumours about what happened at a public event? See what footage is available from someone there.

We are in an age where almost anything can be accessed by an online search. Nonsense statements and assertions can be debunked in seconds. Too few take full advantage of this.

If the light goes on for even one person, then this is worth it.

For a wider perspective, here are a few videos that explain it well:

(1) Rocking Mr. E has a channel called Rocking Philosophy. He released a video in May 2018 on globalist approved opposition, and 3 rules to spot it. There are valid questions to ask when certain voices are promoted, even when they offer little in groundbreaking content. One doesn’t have to agree with his politics to see him poking holes in establishment narratives. It’s a video that’s well worth watching.

(2) Actual Justice Warrior has an interesting take from October 2019. He addressed claims that the mainstream media is dying. He further points out that it’s a bad business model to be celebrating their demise, even if it were true. Real journalism can be quite expensive to engage in. By contrast, commentary channels are a dime a dozen, but still are completely dependent on others doing the underlying work. Investigative journalism — which involves long hours digging through records — can be relatively cheap, but is extremely time consuming.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/c/RockingMrE-RockingPhilosophy
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q08p5kDVn98
(3) https://www.youtube.com/c/ActualJusticeWarrior/videos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GQadCvo58
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/how-to-do-your-own-research-investigative-journalism/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-your-own-freedom-of-information-access-to-information-requests/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-canlii-other-court-records-searches/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-searching-government-lobbying-registries/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-researching-registered-canadian-charities/

Posted on

Public Media Alliance, Brussels Declaration, Protecting Journalists & “Media Freedom”

The Public Media Alliance claims that harassment, threats, and violence towards journalists is a serious concern. This organization also thinks the media isn’t independent enough. While that is certainly true, it seems this NGO is less than sincere in what it states it supports.

For some even more Orwellian organizations, check this piece on: (a) Journalism Trust Initiative; (b) Trusted News Initiative; (c) Project Origin: and (d) The Trust Project. There’s also this article on the Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity.

So-called public service media, or PSM, refers to media outlets that are either run by, or heavily financed by the respective Governments. The PMA is quite blunt about this.

Financial models for public media organisations vary but an element of public funding is central. This is usually provided by either allocation from general government resources or via a general charge on users (licence fee). Public media organisations also supplement declining public resources with external revenue in order to maintain quality.

However, what will become clear is that the PMA doesn’t really advocate for a free and open media. Instead, it calls for media — and publicly funded ones — that operate within their own ideologies.

Within the PMA, there is a subgroup called the Global Task Force, or GTF.

The GTF claims its values are: access, accuracy, accountability, creativity, impartiality, independence and high standards of journalism. All these underpin an informed and healthy democracy. Many of these are under assault by various forces, both private and public.

It also says on its webpage that “public service media must develop a coordinated global response mechanism in order to defend and promote core values.” At face value, there is nothing that catches attention.

The Global Task Force exists to defend the values and the interests of Public Media.
.
The Global Task Force (GTF) was formed to develop a consensus and single, strong voice around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide. An industry led initiative, the GTF offers a perspective that spans countries, languages and cultures.

The 8 members of the “Global Task Force” have openly supported the Brussels Declaration, which they claim is a new global initiative to protect journalists and media freedom.

  • David Anderson, Managing Director, ABC (Australia)
  • Thomas Bellut, Director General, ZDF (Germany)
  • Delphine Ernotte Cunci, President & CEO, France Télévisions (France)
  • Tim Davie, Director General, BBC (United Kingdom)
  • Jim Mather, Chair of the Board, RNZ (New Zealand)
  • Hanna Stjärne, Director General, SVT (Sweden)
  • Catherine Tait, President & CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada, GTF Chair (Canada)
  • Yang Sung-dong, President & CEO, KBS (South Korea)

This is by no means the entire list who endorsed the Brussels Declaration. In fact, dozens of broadcasters, mainly publicly funded, have already signed on to it. These include:

  • Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) – BEL
  • Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) – BEL
  • Radio-Canada – CAN
  • CBC/Radio-Canada – CAN
  • France Télévisions – FRA
  • Radio France – FRA
  • British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – GBR
  • Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) – NLD
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – INT ORG
  • Public Media Alliance (PMA) – INT ORG
  • Les Médias Francophones Publics – INT ORG
  • Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) – DEU
  • Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) – DEU
  • International Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • European Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • Knowledge Network Corporation – INT ORG
  • Die Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) – CHE
  • Médias multiplateforme éducatif et culturel du Québec – CAN
  • Sveriges Utbildningsradio – SWE
  • France Médias Monde – FRA
  • Yleisradio – FIN
  • Sveriges Television (SVT) – SWE
  • Asia – Pacific Broadcasting Organisation – INT ORG
  • Lituanian National Television and Radio – LTU
  • TV5 Québec Canada – CAN
  • TV5MONDE – FRA/INT ORG
  • Televisión América Latina (TAL, Union of Latinamerican Public, Educational and Cutlural Broadcasters) – INT ORG
  • Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Costa Rica – CRI
  • Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) – KOR
  • Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – NZL
  • Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) – CHE
  • Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – BIH
  • Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) – AUT
  • Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) – PRT
  • NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) – JPN
  • Australian Broadcasting Corporation – AUS

That is quite the list, and it will surely grow in time.

Now, what is the Brussels Declaration? Primarily, it revolves around 5 points and commitments, claiming to want to protect a free and independent media worldwide.

[1] We improve the safety of journalists and other media staff
[2] We stand up for the independence of public broadcasters
[3] We encourage well-informed democratic debate
[4] We support a strong and diverse news media landscape
[5] We promote diversity, fairness and inclusion within our own organisation and in the society we serve

On the surface, there is nothing objectionable about any of this. In fact, these are great goals to work towards. However, when we see these principles applied in practice, and the rampant double standards, questions start to come up.

Each point could be an entire article by itself, but we will try to make this short, and more manageable. Considering the content of the Brussels Declaration, it’s fair to ask who wrote certain parts of Trudeau’s legislation over the last several years.

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

All journalists, crew members and media professionals need to be able to safely perform their duties. To that end, the signatories commit to providing the resources and support their employees need to protect themselves from physical violence and online harassment, while raising public awareness about the impact of those attacks on democracy.

No one supports having physical harm come to journalists. However, legitimate criticism (and trolling) is often conflated with violence or attacking. By doing this, it undermines efforts to hold reporters accountable for what they publish, especially things that are provably false.

That said, there is little to no coverage of protests in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Nor do mainstream outlets cover police brutality towards peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost as if there was a certain narrative to push.

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

The signatories commit to publicly condemning any attempt to undermine the independence of public service media — whether it’s through political pressure, financial threats or retribution, harassment or attacks against employees, or antimedia rhetoric. They also commit to improving understanding of the distinction between public and state broadcasters.

Public service media is independent? Watch 2:25 to 4:40 in particular, from this October 2020 video. Not a peep from any of the “journalists” there. Tam openly admits that: (a) journalists are asked to promote their agenda; (b) social media directs people to certain sites; (c) taking down content; (d) demonetizing content; and (c) manipulating the algorithm to bury certain content . However, not only are there no objections, but no one seems even the slightest bit surprised by this.

As for the independence of public service media, would it be too much to ask that it be made obvious that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major donor of the BBC? It’s not like this was difficult to find, or that it’s even much of a secret at this point.

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

In response to the global disinformation crisis, the signatories commit to providing trusted news and information, supporting fact-checking initiatives, boosting media literacy, and monitoring and removing hate speech from their platforms. They also pledge to call on social media companies and regulators to eradicate online hate on third-party platforms.

Calling on social media companies to remove “hate”, whatever that is? This raises the obvious question of who actually writes legislation in Parliament to call for such things.

Should the Government be financing the fact-check organizations that keep it in line? Moreover, should political operatives be running such groups? How is there real accountability when the media and the groups monitoring them are funded by the same people? Isn’t it just a dog-and-pony show at that point? It’s not independent if funding depends on pushing a narrative — regardless of who’s pushing it. While too numerous to name here, below are recent articles on exactly this subject.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(c) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(d) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(e) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(f) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(g) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(h) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

A diverse mix of public, community and private news media is fundamental to a strong news ecosystem and healthy democracy. Consequently, the signatories commit to collaborating with other domestic media outlets to protect local journalism — including sharing best practices on journalist safety and speaking with one voice on common challenges.

Quite interesting. Last April, CBC reported that Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, was openly considering laws to ban “misinformation” around the so-called pandemic. Although nothing seems to have happened (yet), this is absolutely chilling. Nonetheless, CBC seemed relatively uninterested, and only gave this a passing mention. Moreover, these outlets seem rather blase about the steady erosion of civil rights, and the ever changing narratives.

Also, how is it exactly that there is a diversity of sources, when they are all being financed to some degree by the Government? Just like the fact-checkers, the media itself is bought off. This extends to many smaller and “independent” news sources. See below.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(c) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(d) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(e) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(f) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(g) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/
(h) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-bailing-out-banks-credit-unions-media-companies/
(i) https://canucklaw.ca/media-5-the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/

5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

In order to uphold the ideals of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness that underpin democratic societies, the signatories commit to more accurately reflecting the diverse makeup and perspectives of the populations they serve, both in their programming and workforce — while also leading efforts to make their workplace inclusive for everyone.

This presumably means forced diversity. In the West, it means less whites, and in particular, less white men. And that’s pretty twisted, considering how few whites there are in general in the mainstream press.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/hirebipoc-replacing-whites-in-the-media-industry-all-at-taxpayer-expense/

In any event, it’s great news knowing that the CBC and some other outlets have signed the Brussels Declaration. It’s so relieving to know that strong, independent media will continue for the years to come.

Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t appear that the Public Media Alliance, the Global Task Force, or any of these groups actually care about having an independent media. This seems more like an effort to protect their dominance, while ignoring the assault on true reporters.

(1) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/
(2) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/global-task-force/
(3) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/
(4) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/content/
(5) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/brussels-declaration-pma-joins-public-media-and-international-organisations-to-call-for-journalist-safety-and-media-freedom/
(6) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/
(7) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/declaration
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jr_rkzzr2Q
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports