Category: Social Media

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

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

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

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

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

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

3. Important Links

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

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

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

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

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

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

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

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

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

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

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

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

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

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

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

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

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

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

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

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

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

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Hate Crime Hoaxes Undermine Public Trust

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

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

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

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

2. Canadian Parliament On Online Hate

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

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims

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

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

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

4. CIJA, Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

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

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

5. Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting

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

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

6. YWCA, Others Get Federal Grants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What Are Impacts On Free Speech? Privacy?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. MSM in Canada (and elsewhere), has been largely obedient to the official stories since they are subsidized to do so, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Important Links

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

3. Anti-Disinfo Just Another Gov’t Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Groups That Are Receiving The Money

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

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

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

5. Emergency Support Fund For Organizations

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

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

6. International Engagement Strategy

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

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

7. Public Policy Forum

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

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

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

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

8. Peter Donolo: Longtime Liberal Strategist

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

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

9. Kathleen Monk: Longtime NDP Operative

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

She is now a Board Member at CIVIX.

10. Robert Asselin: Ex-Trudeau Operative

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

Currently, he is a Board Member of CIVIX.

11. Elizabeth Dubois: Assistant To Liberal MP

>

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

Now, Dubois is a Board Member at CIVIX.

12. Rachel Curran: Harper Operative

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

13. Francis LeBlanc: Ex-Liberal MP

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

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

14. Megan Beretta: Ties To Several Groups

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

15. Giroux, Clifford: Ex-Mulroney Operatives

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

16. News Media Canada On Disinformation

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

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

17. Politics Mixing With Media Fact Checking

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

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

Posted on

How Conservative Inc. Media Provides Cover For Hoax Being Perpetrated

This is Brian Lilley, who works for the Toronto Sun. Rather than do any in depth reporting on the fraud and hoax that this “pandemic” is, Lilley prefers to run interference for Doug Ford. Instead of holding the Ontario Government to account, his response is: “well, the other guys would have been worse”.

Lilley wants people to look at a symptom (how this is managed), and not the disease (creeping Communist takeover). He’s far from alone.

1. Strategic Uselessness Of Con Inc. Media

Liberal position: More lockdowns, more restrictions, more freedoms taken away. Don’t be selfish and act in individual interest.

Conservative position: Maybe these measures are a bit harsh, but people shouldn’t go around flaunting the rules. They should follow the directions of Public Health.

The effect this has is one of limiting of Overton Window so that public discourse is extremely narrow. An honest discussion of what’s going on is not encouraged by either side. And Conservative Inc. media plays their part in freezing and neutralizing any real opposition.

Very few argue that these measures — which are effectively martial law — are completely wrong, or that the “pandemic” is a manufactured crisis. What they do is criticize details of how it’s implemented.

This is intentional, of course. The goal is not holding Governments accountable for the things they do, but the “illusion” of holding them accountable. This is something completely different.

2. Con Inc. 2-Faced On Media Subsidies

Lorrie Goldstein, in that one tweet, sums up what is wrong with “conservative” outlets in Canada. He feigns outrage at Trudeau for using taxpayer money to prop up unprofitable media. In the next breath, he shrugs it off as necessary to save jobs.

Perhaps their tepid opposition is one of pragmatism: in order to keep the subsidies rolling in, it’s best not to rock the boat too much. The odd shot at Trudeau is allowed, but no serious threats to the status quo are premitted.

Of course, an honourable mention goes to the “charity” of True North Centre for Public Policy. This is what Candice Malcolm, (Jason Kenney’s ex-Staffer), took over and claims to have founded. It was originally the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Even while Malcolm rails against media subsidies, she profits from repurposing an actual charity for tax benefits.

3. More Examples Of Controlled Media

People should follow the rules and obey Public Health guidelines. But at least Hillier is open about his position. Really?

What second wave?

Or take this piece by Spencer Fernando. He calls for Rod Phillips to be fired for taking a trip abroad in December, but Ford apparently gets a pass, despite covering it up. Such hypocrisy. Then again, what can one expect from the National Citizen’s Coalition?

There’s also this juvenile clip from Andrew Lawton. He proposes removing any restriction that a politician gets caught breaking. While amusing, he avoids any real coverage on the deception at the heart of the scam.

These examples are just a tiny bit of what is available online.

In recent days, 2 noticeable themes have emerged:
[1] Criticizing politicians for leaving the country
[2] Borders remain open during “pandemic”

A focus lately is how countless politicians have been caught breaking the rules they insist on for other people.

Interestingly, many in the media don’t take this as an opportunity to reevaluate how dangerous the whole situation is (or isn’t). Instead, the anger is directed at the people not being subjected to the same erosions of their freedoms. Nice trick.

Similarly with the flights coming in. Media in Canada are finally talking about the absurdity of keeping the borders open in a “pandemic”, and not asking why borders should be open at all. The focus becomes on asking if it is safe to allow travellers in.

These tactics are great are directing anger towards people breaking the rules, rather than getting the public to question why those rules exist in the first place. Conservative outlets don’t seem to have much of an issue with stripping our rights away in general. They just argue over the minor details of how to do it. It’s a way to narrow the focus on debate, and limit real discussion.

4. Goal Is To Limit Public Discussion

There isn’t any real opposition in the MSM to Governments imposing martial law, no matter where on the political spectrum they are. Instead,

Putting the spotlight on people like Rod Phillips, breaking his own rules, is a deliberate move. It is done to focus anger on those who are not following along. This is an appeal to emotion, deflecting from having a logical discussion.

A very common tactic is played out here: get people focused on a symptom (hypocritical politicians), and not on the disease (erosion of basic rights). Too many in Canada will spend their time covering the symptoms exclusively.

Keep in mind that Con Inc. media has very low regard for the growing resistance to these power grabs. These people are not allies, and cannot be trusted. Legitimate voices are ignored, or dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

5. Questions That Need To Be Asked

Here some difficult questions that must always be in the public eye. Before accepting the official narrative at face value, they have to be answered. Unfortunately, we aren’t getting this from the media giants.

  • Has this virus ever been isolated?
  • What’s the real fatality rate?
  • How many people have it, and have recovered?
  • Why use PCR tests, when its creator says this isn’t their purpose?
  • What’s the error rate of PCR tests?
  • What’s the error rate of antibody tests?
  • Why bother with rapid-tests if the test itself is flawed?
  • Do masks actually work?
  • How are group sizes (or bubbles) determined?
  • Where did the 2m distancing requirement come from?
  • Why are hospitals really being emptied out?
  • Why are other causes of death being downplayed?
  • Why are deaths mis-labelled to drive up the CV count?
  • How do you determine “non-essential” businesses?
  • Why are Governments so eager to shut businesses down?
  • Is this all just an excuse to implement social changes?
  • Was the “Great Reset” laid out in advance?
  • Why are laws written to give health officers dictator powers?
  • Are we legally obligated to follow WHO’s IHR?
  • Did the WHO actually write the 2005 Quarantine Act?
  • How many politicians actually oppose what is going on?
  • Have politicians been bribed or threatened into compliance?
  • Was all of this planned out?

6. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

This is what a small site can come up with, given enough time and hard work. Yet the mainstream media Canada in can’t provide proof that this “pandemic” is entirely manufactured?

Posted on

CV #46(B): So-Called “Journalist” Mark Slapinski Wants Person He Doesn’t Agree With Jailed

Canada has reached a new low. A self-identified “independent journalist” named Mark Slapinski has called for someone to be imprisoned for having different views. But don’t worry, it’s only in the name of safety.

1. Not A Personal Defense Of Saccoccia

To add in a disclaimer: this article is not about personally defending Chris Saccoccia (a.k.a. Chris Sky). He is obnoxious, looks goofy, and overall, is difficult to take seriously. And he may very well be attempting to co-opt real resistance. Nonetheless, he does have his free speech rights. These rights are especially important in light of blatant lies, gaslighting, and lawfare that we experience.

2. Mark Slapinski Started Actual Petition

Chris Sky has become infamous for leading the anti-mask movement in Toronto, as well as spreading inaccurate and anti-scientific information about COVID19 on Social Media.

Chris Sky was recently seen breaking into Adamson BBQ as an act of “united non-compliance” with a group of followers. This escalation in tactics from Mr. Sky is a danger to public health, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Chris Sky has been charged by police before, but it appears those charges have not deterred him from spreading disinformation and putting people’s lives in danger.

If Sky continues this behaviour, COVID rates will likely continue to rise, and extend the length of the lockdown. His anti-vaccine rhetoric will likely delay a lifting of COVID restrictions, due to him contributing to “vaccine hesitancy”.

The best way to send a message to anti-maskers is to put their leader in jail.
.
Sign the petition. Let’s put Chris Sky behind bars!
.
Started by Toronto Today

Now, who is Mark Slapinski?
Here is some information he provides on his LinkedIn page.

At first, it’s difficult to believe this is real. Mark Slapinski is a journalist, or at least he “identifies” as one. However, he openly calls for someone with a different opinion to be locked up. Aside from the obvious cognitive dissonance, Slapinski seems oblivious to the idea that it is exactly that mentality that could one day see HIM shut down and jailed.

It’s unclear whether Slapinski is a plant being used by the government to promote censorship, or if he is just a useful idiot. Either way, this needs to be called out.

In the petition, Slapinski drops his real goal. He wants to silence the “anti-maskers” by putting Chris Saccoccia/Sky in jail. This is a deliberate attempt to shut down views he disagrees with. Never mind that Sky doesn’t speak for the people as a whole — most find him distasteful.

Interesting that Slapinsky uses the phrase “vaccine hesitancy”. Outside of Government and NGO circles, it’s rarely heard. It refers to people’s reluctance (for whatever reason), to be vaccinated. And Slapinski makes it clear he wants people to get it.

Never mind that this “pandemic” is grossly overblown, and is being used to implement a larger social agenda. Slapinski is either completely ignorant of all of this (and has done no research), or is willfully complicit in deceiving the public.

Slapinski would do a far greater public service if he spent his time researching and fact checking the claims and predictions the Government makes. The official story falls apart under any real scrutiny.

3. Soros Funded Change.Org Petitions

It seems Slapinski has filed several petitions with change.org. And while he calls for Black Lives Matter people to be freed, he wants to lock up people who aren’t violent. Pick a lane. Also, it’s oddly amusing the never ending attempts to gaslight whites by using the “Nazi” logo.

At least these are theoretically possible, unlike the current petition to have someone jailed. Someone needs to tell him that’s not how the law works. Police respond to complaints filed, not petitions.

4. Censorship, Social Media Collusion Here Now

See 2:30 in the Tam/Trudeau video. Tam openly admits that there is social media collusion to: (a) take down media that contradicts the narrative; (b) direct people to “trusted” sites; (c) demonetize accounts that don’t play along; and (d) manipulate search algorithms to make them harder to find. The Canadian media doesn’t call this out.

Social media outlets already collude with governments to promote the pro-vaccine narrative, and it’s no accident so many outlets in Canada are subsidized. Governments also have floated the idea of “misinformation” laws to criminally penalize people who contradict the official stories.

At best, Slapinski seems to be aware of none of this, and is blindly parroting back Government talking points. At worst, he is actively trying to censor, shut down (and jail) critics.

Again, none of this is to defend Saccoccia/Sky himself — who does more harm than good to the resistance — but to defend the principle of free speech.

5. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

Posted on

Bill C-10; Censorship; Theresa Tam Openly Admits Social Media Collusion

What a goldmine this short video clip is. Theresa “the Apple” Tam openly admits that there is collusion on social media, (see 3:55), such as: (a) automatically forwarding searches to specific sites; (b) demonetizing certain accounts; and (c) algorithm manipulation to prevent certain information from being seen.

Tam also parrots the UNESCO narrative regarding misinformation. At 6:00, Tam asks people to create videos and testimonials promote the Covid narrative. At 7:00, Tam uses “Vaccine Confidence“, which is actually a global psychological effort to get people vaccinated.

And while Trudeau denies internment camps are being built, Brampton Mayor, a “conserative” Patrick Brown thanks people for receiving the funding to build an internment camp.
https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1325997706943352832

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

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

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau/Tam casually admitting to censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Tam looking for ways to vaccinate more people.
CLICK HERE, for great censorship piece by INFORRM.ORG.
CLICK HERE, for social media firms “catching misinformation”.
CLICK HERE, for Dominic LeBlanc considering “misinformation” law.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-10 introduced in Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for openparliament.ca, Bill C-10 entry.

CLICK HERE, for Google censorship “keeping the public safe”.
CLICK HERE, for Google meeting Canadian Gov’t.
https://archive.is/2NNky
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for information on Twitter platform censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Twitter lobbying Canadian Government.
https://archive.is/L67ID

CLICK HERE, for Facebook promoting censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Facebook influence/lobbying Gov’t.
https://archive.is/3Mwny
WayBack Machine Archive

4. Tam: Duties For Social Media Companies

Tam and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Howard Njoo warned against misinformation about vaccine safety online and explained why social media giants have a role to play in sharing trusted material.

“This is the first pandemic in the age of the Internet and social media. This is an area of significant work because we have an overload of information through which many Canadians can’t sort out what is credible and what is not,” she said.

“I look towards different partners, government departments coming together to look at how we better address some of the myths and misinformation that is in that space. I think fundamentally it’s a massive challenge.”

The Statistics Canada report also shows that nearly 58 per cent of respondents said that they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a majority being 65 and older.

Theresa Tam openly says that social media has a role to play in advancing the vaccination agenda, and in countering information that contradicts the official narrative. Also, take a look into the issue of “vaccine hesitancy“, or vaccine confidence.

5. YouTube/Google Openly Censor Critics Online

Canuck Law was given a strike and had a video removed for contradicting the official narrative on YouTube. The video was based on Part 29 in the series: lies of public health officials. As such, it has become clear that real discussion on the platform will never be permitted.

If you’re posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
.
Treatment Misinformation: Discourages someone from seeking medical treatment by encouraging the use of cures or remedies to treat COVID-19.
.
-Claims that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that people do not die from it
-Content that encourages the use of home remedies in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
-Content that encourages the use of prayer or rituals in place of medical treatment
-Content that claims that a vaccine for coronavirus is available or that there’s a guaranteed cure
-Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
-Content that claims that any currently-available medicine prevents you from getting the coronavirus
-Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
-Prevention Misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Diagnostic Misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Transmission Misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
.
-Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
-Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
-Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
-Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
-Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19

Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes context that gives equal or greater weight to countervailing views from local health authorities or to medical or scientific consensus. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn or dispute misinformation that violates our policies. This context must appear in the images or audio of the video itself. Providing it in the title or description is insufficient.

Examples
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
.
–Denial that COVID-19 exists
-Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
-Claims that there’s a guaranteed vaccine for COVID-19
-Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
-Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
-Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
-Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
-Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
-Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
-Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus
-Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
-Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
-Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
-Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
-Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it

These are the rules that YouTube (which is actually owned by Google), now have in place. The actual truth or research of the videos are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether or not it contradicts the official narrative.

Google, the parent company of YouTube, has been meeting with Federal officials for a variety of issues, including media manipulation regarding the “pandemic”.

6. Twitter Censorship, Meeting With Gov’t

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

New labels and warnings
.
During active conversations about disputed issues, it can be helpful to see additional context from trusted sources. Earlier this year, we introduced a new label for Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media. Similar labels will now appear on Tweets containing potentially harmful, misleading information related to COVID-19. This will also apply to Tweets sent before today.

Twitter has updated their policies a few times this year, but it falls along the same idea as YouTube: information that openly contradicts the official position and recommendation of the World Health Organization and its proxies is at risk of being censored.

People like Theresa Tam and Justin Trudeau aren’t alarmed at the blatant censorship going on in the online sphere. On the contrary, they fully support it, as it undermines attempts to disprove their claims.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act and make related and consequential amendments to other acts
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.

Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how social media companies create their own rules and policies.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.

Twitter has also been meeting with the Federal Government on issues such as Bill C-10, and regulating online content. This screams of efforts to crack down on free speech and censor unpleasant truth.

7. Facebook Censorship/Collusion Over Covid

Ever since COVID-19 was declared a global public health emergency in January, we’ve been working to connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading on our apps.

We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center and pop-ups on Facebook and Instagram with over 350 million people clicking through to learn more.

But connecting people to credible information is only half the challenge. Stopping the spread of misinformation and harmful content about COVID-19 on our apps is also critically important. That’s why we work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review and rate content in more than 50 languages around the world. In the past month, we’ve continued to grow our program to add more partners and languages. Since the beginning of March, we’ve added eight new partners and expanded our coverage to more than a dozen new countries. For example, we added MyGoPen in Taiwan, the AFP and dpa in the Netherlands, Reuters in the UK, and others.

Facebook is quite open about the fact that they are trying to alter the narrative and prop up official versions of events. They also have no qualms about censoring so-called “misinformation”.

Facebook has also been meeting with the Federal Government, on a variety of issues. It would be nice to actually have the minutes of these meetings, not just a vague description.

8. CBC Promotes Limiting Free Speech

Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation online because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some critics say they could still do more.

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube have ramped up their efforts to police content that contains incorrect or harmful information, taking down the worst offenders, attaching warnings to content that has been fact-checked and linking to official sources, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada.

That includes posts such as a viral video by an American doctor on disciplinary probation in which he claims 5G technology causes coronavirus (it does not) or a false post implying the Canadian Armed Forces were in Toronto, but which turned out to be a photo of a tank taken during a festival in 2016.

On Thursday, Facebook said it has attached warnings to 40 million posts about COVID-19, and that 95 per cent of the time, users did not click through to see the content. Twitter says it has taken down over 2,000 tweets related to COVID-19 and “challenged” 2.8 million accounts, which can mean limiting who sees certain tweets, requiring a tweet to be removed or placing a warning on tweets that violate rules but are in the public interest to leave up.

This should alarm people. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all decided what shall constitute the truth, and are intentionally limiting access to information that doesn’t fit the narrative. Let’s not forget that the Liberals are considering laws to ban what they call “misinformation”.

9. Trudeau/Erin O’Toole Both Compromised

Trudeau: His Chief-Of-Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver, co-founder of Crestview Strategy. Crestview has long lobbied for GAVI (which is Gates funded). Andrew Scheer was also lobbied by GAVI.

O’Toole: His Chief-Of-Staff, Walied, Soliman, is a director for Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto (which is also Gates funded).

Also: Erin O’Toole, who is currently the head of the Conservative Party of Canada, was previously a lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blakie. Blakie is the now defunct law firm which Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both worked at.

10. Bill C-10: Online Censorship, Licensing

In early February, Steven Guilbeault, the Heritage Minister announced that the Government wanted mandate that all media outlets to have a license. He (sort of) backtracked after a public backlash. While this may have just been viewed as a tax grab at the time, it takes on a whole new look in light of the censorship attitude in this “pandemic”.

It’s official: Bill C-10 has now been introduced in the House of Commons. It’s been marketed as an effort to force media giants to spend money on Canadian content. Let’s take a look.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Part (b) would require providers to pander to all groups under the sun, although not aiming content at Europeans would probably be considered okay.

Does (i) specify that online content (such as videos and websites) would be excluded from any media licensing requirement?

Although the Government (now) says specifically that news outlets would be exempt from being required to get a license, one has to wonder if this will actually be the case. It’s also unclear if access to social media will be limited to only the approved parties. After all, they seem pretty pro censorship. As with many things, the devil is in the details.

Bill C-10 deserves a stand-alone piece, which will be coming soon. This hardly does it justice.

11. “Misinformation-Fighting” Efforts Online

https://pledgetopause.org/
https://www.shareverified.com/en
https://en.unesco.org/fightfakenews

A few of the sites popping up to stop people from asking the questions that need to be asked.

12. Will IHR Make Censorship Mandatory?

Risk communication and community engagement
-Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
-Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
-Work with partners and countries to articulate potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for strengthened cross-sectoral preparedness, transparency and global coordination.

The International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are legally binding. Considering that WHO supports efforts to “combat misinformation”, one has to wonder if laws to censor certain views will be imposed.