British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

  • Decriminalization
  • Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
  • Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
  • Lifeguard App
  • Take-home naloxone kits
  • New beds for addictions and recovery care
  • Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
  • Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Julie Glover
  • Pfizer Canada Inc.
  • Unbounded Canada Foundation
  • Vancouver Foundation

$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

  • British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
  • Merck Canada Inc.
  • Pacific Blue Cross
  • Teradici Corp

$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

  • AbbVie Canada Corp.
  • Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
  • BC Teachers’ Federation
  • Ben and Lilac Milne
  • BlueSky Properties
  • Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
  • Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
  • Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
  • Imperial Medical Group Inc.
  • Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
  • LifeLabs
  • London Drugs Limited
  • Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
  • Sanofi
  • Vancouver Dispensary Society
  • Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.


Bill C-21: Reintroduced Legislation To Whittle Away Gun Rights

Bill C-21 was introduced in the last session of Parliament, but died when there was an election called. However, it’s been reintroduced, with some changes and new content. The changes primarily impact the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

It was recently announced, and covered by CPAC, that imports of handguns would be stopped by August 19, 2022. This was done by a regulatory change, without any democratic mandate or process. Seems that Ottawa doesn’t want to wait or take that chance.

Of course, the “temporary” measure announced on August 5th would be effectively made permanent if and when Bill C-21 is ever passed.

None of this ever addresses the elephant in the room: most serious crimes with firearms involve illegal guns, whereas this Bill primarily targets law abiding citizens. It’s almost as if there was some coordinated effort to disarm the population.

1. Adding “Red Flag” Laws To Canadian Criminal Code

Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code call for people to be subjected to weapons prohibitions following convictions for certain offences. The proposed amendments would allow ordinary citizens to file an application to have another person’s guns seized.

The hearings would generally be ex-parte, or without the participation of the other side. That doesn’t really seem consistent with due process, or fairness.

There is a provision in the Bill to remove firearms if a protection order is issued against someone for domestic violence and/or stalking. However, that’s always been a remedy.

2. Adding “Yellow Flag” Laws, Halt/Suspend Certificates

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 Insertion start(1)Insertion end A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
Start of inserted block
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

34 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b)Insertion end or an authorization to transport — Insertion startand the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a)Insertion end — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

A firearms officer can refuse to issue a permit “for any good and sufficient reason”. However, it’s not defined what a good and sufficient reason is This would make it almost entirely discretionary, and open to abuse. A license can also be suspended on those same grounds.

3. Prohibiting Any Sales Or Transfers Of Hundguns

Authorization to transfer prohibited or restricted firearms
23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

27 On being informed of a proposed transfer of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm under section 23.2, a chief firearms officer shall
(a) verify
(i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,
(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and
(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be;
(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee or individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;

These are Sections 23.2 and 27 of the Canada Firearms Act. It specifies the steps and actions needed to transfer a restricted or prohibited firearm from one party to another. Pretty straightforward. Bill C-21 would add an extra clause to that

[Section 23.2]
(d.‍1) if the transferee is an individual and the firearm is a handgun, the individual is referred to in section 97.‍1;

[Section 27]
(iv) if the proposed transfer is in respect of a handgun, whether the transferee is an individual referred to in section 97.‍1;

If a handgun is to be transferred to an individual, this would be referred to another portion of the Firearms Act. Section 97 allows the Governor in Council to restrict such sales or transfers.

4. Expanding Definition Of “Replica” Firearm

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm;

Changes to the criminal code would list that a replica firearm that can fire a projectile at a certain speed )(or with a certain amount of energy) can be prohibited. This could include things like paintball guns, which have valid recreational uses. Problem is, “exactly resemble” is subjective.

5. Other Thoughts On The Matter

There are a few small points which seem beneficial, such as making it harder for foreigners to enter Canada if they have convictions for certain firearms offences. But overall, that doesn’t offset the erosion of rights that’s being done with this legislation.

Another section would create a new criminal offence for altering the capacity of a magazine (allowing it to hold more bullets than allowed). While it sounds fine on the surface, someone with an illegal or stolen gun wouldn’t care about such things.

These measures do little to target crime. Instead, they restrict the rights of people to legally possess and use guns. Strange how that always seems to be the group of people these Bills hit.

Do read the entire Bill, as this critique is not exhaustive. It would be impractical for the Government to simply ban guns right away — though many would like to. Instead, introducing these measures bit by bit seems to be the way forward.


Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

An argument that doesn’t seem to be brought up (at least in Canadian circles) is lockdown measures are illegal for another reason: they violate the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Now, there is a provision that makes this (largely) null and void, but it’s still interesting to think about.

Of course, this doesn’t seem to apply when the state is the one taking the hostages. There’s a weasel clause that makes state-sanctioned hostage taking okay. One would think that international bodies facilitating hostage taking would make it apply.

Anyhow, let’s take a brief look through the document:

Article 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
(a) attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
(b) participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

One would think that detaining citizens at airports for refusing the nasal rape test (for a non-existent virus) counts. Does threatening people with financially crippling fines for not complying with arbitrary or inconsistent rules qualify?

What about forcibly sending people to quarantine camps? Or imposing de-facto house arrest for a period of time, as demanded by public health?

How about being threatened with the loss of one’s livelihood for not wanting to take an unknown experimental concoction?

Article 3
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure.
(2) If any object which the offender has obtained as a result of the taking of hostages comes into the custody of a State Party, that State Party shall return it as soon as possible to the hostage or the third party referred to in article 1, as the case may be, or to the appropriate authorities thereof.

A country has an obligation under this agreement to secure the release of foreigners held hostage in another one. However, that doesn’t apply to domestic hostages.

Article 4
States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in article 1, particularly by:
(a) taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their ter­ritories, including measures to prohibit in their territories illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of acts of taking of hostages;
(b) exchanging information and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.

Based on this alone, the Public Health Agency of Canada should be shut down. It encourages, instigates, organizes and engages in acts of hostage taking via “public health orders”.

Article 7
The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States con­cerned and the international intergovernmental organizations concerned.

Article 8
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.
(2) Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connexion with any of the offences set forth in article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings, including enjoyment of all the rights and guarantees provided by the law of the State in the territory of which he is present.

Considering that these measures are instigated by supra-national bodies, would we not be able to extradite members of W.H.O. here in order to prosecute for hostage taking?

Article 13
This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the hostage and the alleged offender are nationals of that State and the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State.

The U.N. states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and secu­rity of person, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the In­ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, but this only seems to apply across borders. Abusing rights domestically doesn’t qualify.

In other words, a foreigner in Canada — even illegally — would theoretically have some recourse here. However, a Canadian citizen would not.

Article 14
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as justifying the violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of a State in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.

Logically, a country wouldn’t be able to carry out hostage taking under the guise of political independence. But when it’s the U.N. or W.H.O. behind it, then perhaps the rules don’t matter. That being said, look at Article 13, at how that loophole makes the document worthless.

Of course, the Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations, PHAC is just a branch of WHO, and originally Health Canada was meant for population control measures.

In the end, we have foreign bodies writing laws which effectively hold us hostage. There’s a treaty against taking hostages, but it doesn’t apply if done domestically. And this loophole bypasses punishment by having Federal, Provincial, and some Municipal authorities do their bidding.


Holocaust Denial Now Punishable By Prison Time In Canada

It’s something that has been discussed in this country for years: the proposal of making Holocaust denial a criminal offence.

It was buried in Bill C-19, Division 21, Section 332. This wasn’t a stand alone Bill, but rather, slipped into a budget. Most likely, very few people know about it.

332 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍1)
(3.‍1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

Would “Conservatives” oppose this on free speech grounds? Would they fight for the principle that even controversial speech must be protected? Will they object to it being slipped into a budget? Not exactly.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative”, introduced Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill, that would do basically the same thing. Interestingly, Waugh’s lacked some safeguards that Bill C-19 had, such as remedies to prevent prosecution.

It’s unclear why this was introduced twice in the House of Commons. Perhaps Waugh’s Private Bill was a backup plan in case Schedule 21 got removed from the budget.

Both versions have the provision that consent from the Attorney General is required for a prosecution. While this may be seen as a check, it opens the possibility of politically selected cases.

Where’s Pierre Poilievre on this free speech issue? Where’s Maxime Bernier?

Remember the flack Iqra Khalid caught for M-103? That was a Motion simply to “study” Islamophobia, and she has heckled for a long time afterwards. She never proposed putting anyone in prison.

For what it’s worth, Senator Paula Simons was willing to speak out on this. However, she’s very much in the minority when it comes to addressing the subject.


Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

Credit for the artwork goes to Bill Huston, and please visit his website. Also, this confrontation with Andrew Kaufman and Judy Mikovits is very much worth the watch. The full livestream is available online and mirrored for anyone wanting it.

Plenty of decent people across the world are fully aware that their freedoms have been crushed in a planned and deliberate manner since 2020. They see that these “conspiracy theories” of using a so-called pandemic to implement societal control turned out to be accurate. Kudos to them for that.

But, there’s one step many won’t take: admit there’s no virus.

Why does this last step matter? Because it’s the pipeline to realizing how deep the pharma rabbit hole goes. If there’s no “Covid-19”, then it means all of the testing equipment is completely faulty and invalid. Moreover, all of the other “viruses” discovered over the years would be immediately suspect. If no viruses have ever been proven to exist, then virology — and germ theory itself — come crashing down. In order to preserve the medical industry, then this lie needs to be protected at all costs.

Why are theories of lab leak and/or bioweapon promoted? Because they attempt to explain the origins of this “virus”, rather than look into whether it’s even real.

How is a “case” defined, according to the World Health Organization? (See archive).

Notwithstanding how vague “suspected” and “probable” cases are, the definitions for so-called confirmed cases are equally dubious.

  1. A person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)
  2. A person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT AND meeting either the probable case definition or suspect criteria A OR B
  3. An asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.

NAAT testing doesn’t prove anything, which will be addressed later. Also, everyone, including the WHO, admits these tests aren’t reliable.

Not only is there the issue of no isolation, WHO recommends in its March 2020 (see page 3), and September 2020 (see page 8), guidance NOT to isolate for routine testing.

Perhaps WHO just doesn’t want proper testing done normally to save money?! Well, not really, their own paperwork (see archive) indicates that they view testing for just a gene to be sufficient.

If no virus has even been isolated or shown to exist, then what have doctors been prescribing over the years? Are they morons, or just being paid off?

Admittedly, it wasn’t really a topic addressed here for quite a while. However, the time has long come for hitting this home. And what is the definition of a “Covid death”? According to the World Health Organization, it is:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. Only a complicit and deliberately obtuse media wouldn’t expose this. (See archive), as the original has either been deleted or moved.

The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), admitted in April 2020 that these tests can’t actually determine active infection. (See original). Also, the 30% error rate is apparently just a commonly quoted statistic, not the result of real research.

There was an article in June 2020 (now deleted), where BCPHO Bonnie Henry warned against mass testing, as false positives could overburden hospitals. See archives here and here.

To repeat: considering that there is no virus isolation, and these tests aren’t designed for infection anyway, what exactly is being tested for?

  • Why is this virus pushed, despite lack of proof it exists?
  • Why have other viruses been pushed, despite lack of proof they exist?
  • Why does WHO recommend against isolation in regular testing?
  • Why does WHO see testing for a gene as sufficient?
  • Why is the definition of “Covid death” so convoluted?
  • Why does Bonnie Henry admit false positives could flood hospitals?
  • Why does the BCCDC admit these tests can’t determine infection?

These are just a few of the core problems.

There’s also all kinds of proof that this was planned in advance. And people should wonder about connections like the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Toronto.

Of course, this isn’t to say that everyone who still believes in germ theory or viruses is a grifter or shill. Plenty of well meaning people are still caught up in that. They RIGHTLY recognize martial law being imposed, but can’t bring themselves to admit that it’s all been a lie.

Many accept that 90-95% of this is a lie, but can’t come to that last part.

That being said, there are still some basic questions that need answering.

Simply saying: “I oppose masks, vaccine passports and lockdowns” is a safe position to take. It doesn’t address the depth of the hoax.

And if you haven’t checked out the work from Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. This deadly “virus” hasn’t been isolated or proven to exist, anywhere in the world. Additionally, it doesn’t appear that any others have been either. There’s also a pretty interesting set of Google docs available from A Warrior Calls, worth checking out.

(3) WHO-2019-nCoV-Surv_Case_Definition-2020.
(10) Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
(17) Wayback Machine

Private Member’s Bill C-250: Prison Time For Holocaust Denial

A Private Member’s Bill, Bill C-250, is circulating in the House of Commons. If passed, it would make Holocaust denial (or downplaying the Holocaust), punishable by up to 2 years in prison. There is also a provision included that would allow for the forfeiture of assets if they were used in the commission.

This appears to apply to public forums, and not in private conversations.

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) The portion of subsection 319(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1)
(3) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with any modifications that end the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

The Bill was introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Kevin Waugh. It will be interesting to see what happens. Historically, Private Member’s Bills typically don’t go anywhere. It’s quite rare to see one that actually receives Royal Assent.

There is also the procedural issue that any prosecution (under the Bill’s current form), would need approval from the Attorney General.

It seems that Waugh has been contacted recently by CIJA. Clamping down on “hate speech” is very high up on their national agenda. They also focus on internet regulation more broadly.

The CPC also proudly brags about this:

Ottawa, ON — Today, Kevin Waugh, Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Grasswood, introduced his Private Members’ Bill, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition – promotion of antisemitism).

Conservatives are committed to ending the scourge of antisemitism in Canada and we believe all Canadians should feel safe and welcome in our communities.

From early 1941 until spring 1945, six million Jewish children, women, and men were murdered in a state-sponsored genocide we now remember as the Holocaust. Holocaust distortion, denial, and antisemitism must be confronted with the strongest opposition and condemnation.

This legislation would make Holocaust denial, one of the main indicators of antisemitism and radicalization, illegal in Canada.

“Ignorance fuels intolerance so we must continue to teach the truths of the past,” said Waugh. “Education is the safeguard of history. We must face history with courage and boldly call out and confront intolerance wherever it exists. Passage of this bill protects the truth.”

Strange that a party that claims to support free speech also is in favour of jailing people for having the wrong viewpoints. (Archive here)

We’ll have to see how things progress in the near future.


%d bloggers like this: