Taxpayer Grants To Fight Misinformation In Media, Including More “Pandemic Bucks”

Nothing screams dystopian nightmare quite like using tax dollars to deploy artificial intelligence to find ways to counter critics of the “pandemic” narrative. It’s not like the AI could be put to good use, or anything like that.

Now, many of these groups aren’t getting money specifically for this, but the same “disinformation” research could still be applied in most cases.

1. 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, periodicals, 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.

2. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

Alex Wilner and Casey Babb Aug. 10, 2020 $9,900
Alperin, Juan P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Asian Environmental Association – HUA Foundation Apr. 1, 2020 $64,660
BILAL Community & Family Centre Aug. 15, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $40,000
Calgary Animated Objects Society Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Centre for Democracy and Development Oct. 22, 2018 $49,420
The Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs Sep. 1, 2020 $38,000
Côté, Catherine Mar. 22, 2020 $8,000
Chun, Wendy H.K. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
CIVIX Nov. 15, 2018 $23,000
Colasante, Tyler Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Concordia University Oct. 1, 2020 $39,270
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, David Jones Dec. 17, 2019 $49,916
David Morin, Marie-Ève Carignan Dec. 4, 2020 $44,838
Digital Public Square Mar. 1, 2020 $679,176
Evans, Jennifer V. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Fleerackers, Alice L. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Gingras, Marie-Pier Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Grisdale, Sean E. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Hodson, Jaigris N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Institute For Canadian Citizenship Mar. 24, 2020 $490,880
Institute For Democracy, Media & Culture Jul. 27, 2020 $35,750
Institute On Governance Oct. 1, 2020 $100,000
International Republican Institute Mar. 15, 2019 $2,973,531
Internews Network Mar. 19, 2020 $3,172,323
IRIS Communications Oct. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $99,500
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
JHR – Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
Ketchum, Alexandra D. Mar. 22, 2020 $23,455
Kingdom Acts Foundation Sep. 1, 2020 $70,500
Lavigne, Mathieu Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Lennox, Rebecca Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Macewan University Nov. 1, 2020 $69,000
Mack, Amy C. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
Magazines Canada May 15, 2019 $63,000
Manchester Metropolitan University Feb. 1, 2020 $214,837
Matthews, Kyle Apr. 20, 2020 $33,377
McLevey, John V.P. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
Moisse, Katie Mar. 22, 2020 $13,417
Nathalie Furrer Aug. 10, 2020 $10,000
Nelson, Kim A. Mar. 22, 2020 $24,498
Neubauer, Robert J. Jan. 1, 2020 $10,000
PeaceGeeks Society Nov. 11, 2015 $46,200
Pennycook, Gordon R. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
QuantSpark Foundation Feb. 26, 2020 $1,155,622
Rupantar Oct. 28, 2018 $24,996
Ruslan Stefanov, Director, Jul. 3, 2018 $15,000
Ryerson University Apr. 1, 2019 $290,250
Ryerson University Jan. 1, 2020 $225,300
Ryerson University Sep. 18, 2020 $97,407
Science North Sep. 1, 2020 $40,000
Simon Fraser University Jan. 19, 2019 $28,750
Simon Fraser University – Int’l Cybercrime Research Oct. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $96,600
Taylor, Emily Jan. 1, 2020 $33,250
Trybun Jan. 21, 2019 $7,114
Young, Hilary A.N. Apr. 1, 2020 $20,000
York University Nov. 1, 2020 $99,956

This is what your tax dollars go towards. Check this link for general disinformation grants, this for propaganda, and this one for specific CV-19 disinfo grants. It’s worth pointing out that for much of the research, even though it may not list the “pandemic” specifically, the information learned could still be applied to it. Besides, the dates are pretty suspicious.

As discussed here, some “fact checking” groups like CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights have extensive political ties, which call into question anything they do produce.

Another updated list is available from Newswire. Nice to see someone else addressing it.

3. Ryerson University’s Social Media Lab

As the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to spread across the world, so too does the flow of information and misinformation related to the virus. In a recent announcement by the Government of Canada, external link, researchers at the Ted Rogers School of Management’s Social Media Lab, in collaboration with researchers at Royal Roads University, received funding to examine the spread of digital misinformation related to the coronavirus. The study seeks to mitigate the spread of misinformation, stigma and fear through education.

The study, Inoculating Against an Infodemic: Microlearning Interventions to Address CoV Misinformation, will be a two-year study that aims to develop online learning interventions to improve people’s knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19.

Researchers at the Social Media Lab have already created a portal, external link designed to track and combat misinformation related to COVID-19.

Ryerson University has started a 2 year program designed to track “misinformation” trends, and to look for ways to counter it online. Of course, if it contradicts the official narrative, it must be tracked and countered.

4. Concordia University’s Disinfo Research

The event will be livestreamed on the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies’ Facebook and YouTube pages.

The Canadian Coalition to Counter COVID Digital Disinformation is a project organized by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies with funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizens Initiative. The team is working to enhance Canadian citizens’ digital literacy and resiliency as they come in contact with misinformation and disinformation relating to COVID-19.

As part of this work, a series of digital townhalls will be held on issues like foreign interference, conspiracy theories and fake news. Stay tuned for more events hosted on these topics.

Concordia took nearly $40,000 to undertake this effort in researching and ultimately combating “misinformation”. Note: institutions like this never seem to question whether the narratives they push is itself fake news. It’s comical.

5. Financing Your Own Brainwashing

Not only does the Government donate to newspapers, periodicals, and other media, but it finances research into combatting misinformation. What this (really) means is that finding ways to prevent the truth from coming out.

And if that doesn’t work, Government can just pass laws to ban opinions it doesn’t like. This has been proposed for nearly a year now. Be aware, that if the efforts fail with the various Government programs, it’s possible different views will just be legislated away.

TSCE #12(C): Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site,, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
Twitter Misleading Information Updates

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products
. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
October 2020
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?

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

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

1. Important Links

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

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

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

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

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

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
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.
(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).
(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.
(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).
(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.

Who’s Pulling Erin O’Toole’s Strings?

So who is Erin O’Toole, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada? What does he believe, and what does he stand for? Turns out, the answers are pretty bad. The CPC is just a parody of an opposition party (6uild 6ack 6etter is now 6uild 6ack “stronger“).

1. Important Links
O’Toole Supports Even More Draconian Measures
Walied Soliman, Sick Kids Toronto Director
Walied Soliman Wins Global Citizen Of The Year Award
O’Toole Lobbied By NCCM, Anti-Free Speech
O’Toole Lobbied By CIJA, Anti-Free Speech
Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud
Erin O’Toole Pushing FIPA In House Of Commons
Full Text Of FIPA With China
CANZUK International Website
James Skinner’s LinkedIn Page
CPC On The Climate Change Agenda
O’Toole, Private Member’s Bill C-405
Lobbying By SNC Lavalin For Deferred Pros. Agreement
Aga Khan Lobbies O’Toole For Funding
Derek Sloan’s Petition e-2961

2. O’Toole Chief Of Staff Walied Soliman

Walied Soliman, O’Toole’s Chief of Staff, has been a Director of Sick Kids Hospital Toronto since 2012. Sick Kids is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. One has to wonder if that is why O’Toole is so supportive of restrictive measures and lockdowns in general.

Soliman was awarded “Global Citizen Of the Year” in 2019. He’s also part of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which is pushing hate speech laws in Canada.

3. Ties To Anti-Free Speech Lobby

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, (NCCM) and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, (CIJA), are just 2 groups working to rewrite the laws in Canada on hate speech. While this is marketed in a harmless manner, the devil’s in the details about what may be included.

4. Ties To Vaccine/Pandemic Industry

Why is O’Toole so vaccination happy? It could be the rampant pharmaceutical lobbying that has been going on, of all major parties. To the lay observer, it looks like he is fulfilling the wishes of special interests, instead of those of Canadians.

This is true with GAVI as well, which is also Gates funded. GAVI and Crestview Strategy lobbied the Office of the Official Opposition as well. At the time, this was Andrew Scheer. However, it seems doubtful that O’Toole’s stance will be any different.

5. Heenan Blaikie, Desmarais, Facebook

Before getting into Parliament, O’Toole worked for the law firm Heenan Blaikie (which is now defunct). It’s the same firm that Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked for. The Desmarais Family also had connections the the company.

In his duties, O’Toole also acted as a lobbyist for Facebook, trying to influence the Government of Stephen Harper — which he later became part of.

6. Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud

O’Toole’s campaign was aided by Jeff Ballingall, and a group called Canada Proud. This is an NGO that tries to promote “conservative” politicians and movements. There are Provincial efforts as well, including Ontario Proud, which helped install Doug Ford into power. O’Toole was helped along by social media pros who got him more attention.

Side note: Ballingall works for The Post Millennial, which is owned by Matthew Azrieli. He is the grandson of the late David Azrieli, media mogul and billionaire.

7. FIPA, Selling Out Canada To China

Upon entering the House of Commons, O’Toole worked as a Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade. His first major gig was pushing FIPA, an agreement which sold Canadian sovereignty to China for a minimum of 31 years. Even after all this time, there’s no indication O’Toole regrets his involvement. See this earlier review on FIPA.

8. CANZUK, Open Borders Agreement

CANZUK is an acronym (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom). The group, CANZUK International, is in a compaign for a treaty that would open borders between those countries. More countries could eventually be added. James Skinner, the head of the group, also worked for the CPC, and it looks like CANZUK is in fact their creation.

O’Toole is on record supporting CANZUK, and future expansion as well. He gives a variety of reasons, depending on what the circumstances are.

9. Open Borders Immigration Agenda

Would O’Toole and the Conservatives reduce the hordes of people entering Canada each year? Would they do something about the large numbers of students and temporary workers who have pathways to extend? It seems most unlikely.

The true scale of immigration into Canada has been covered extensively on this site, so no need to rehash it here. But fair to say that O’Toole either lowballs it, or has no clue whatsoever.

10. Supporting Climate Change Agenda

Ottawa, ON – Dan Albas, Conservative Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, released the following statement regarding Justin Trudeau’s plan to triple the Carbon Tax:

“Fighting climate change at home and around the world is an important goal that takes work. Canadians agree on the importance of protecting our environment and natural spaces, and it is an issue that our Party and Leader are passionate about.

“It’s shameful that the Liberals failed to properly consult provinces on their plan raise the Carbon Tax. The environment is an area of shared jurisdiction and Canada’s Conservatives will respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories by scrapping Trudeau’s Carbon Tax. If provinces want to use market mechanisms, other forms of carbon pricing, or regulatory measures, that is up to them.

“This week, Conservatives put forward a motion to stop the Liberals from raising taxes during the pandemic. Not only did the Liberals vote against our motion, but they are now raising the Carbon Tax even higher. This increase will mean that Canadians will pay more for groceries, home heating, and add up to 37.57 cents per litre to the cost of gas.

A moment of clarification here: O’Toole and the CPC don’t actually take issue with the climate change agenda itself. Instead, they limit their criticisms specifically to Carbon taxes.

The disingenuous nature of the Provinces “challenging” the Carbon taxes, while supporting the climate change agenda has also been covered here.

11. Weakening Protections On Worker Pensions

Although it ultimately went nowhere, O’Toole previously introduced Private Member’s Bill C-405, which would make it easier for bankrupt companies to transfer employee pensions instead of paying them out. Wonder where he got that idea from.

12. SNC Lavalin, Deferred Prosecution

Ever wonder why Conservatives were so tepid on SNC Lavalin getting their deferred prosecution agreement? Could be because they were also lobbied for it. Seems that “tough on crime” has its limits.

13. Aga Khan Foundation Canada

Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is a registered charity that supports social development programs in Asia and Africa. As a member of the Aga Khan Development Network, AKFC works to address the root causes of poverty: finding and sharing effective and lasting solutions that help improve the quality of life for poor communities. Our programs focus on four core areas: health, education, rural development and building the capacity of non-governmental organizations.

In the year 2018, the Aga Khan Foundation received roughly $32 million from Canadian taxpayers. It’s a little disturbing to see Conservatives lobbied by this group as well, especially considering the grief they gave Trudeau over his winter vacation.

14. O’Toole Never Mentions Central Banking

From time to time, O’Toole will make noises about how Conservatives are better managers of money than Liberals. However, he never talks about private central banking, which is probably the biggest scam in history. He was in Parliament during the Bank of Canada case (so he presumably is familiar with the issue). But he will never talk about it openly.

15. Why Throw Derek Sloan Under The Bus?

Derek Sloan, a CPC MP, faces expulsion from his party for accepting a donation of $131 from a so-called “white supremacist”. Is that the real reason for this, or was O’Toole pressured by his pharma handlers after Sloan sponsored? Petition e-2961 referred to these vaccines as “human experimentation”.

Obviously O’Toole knows for sure, but the claim of a “racist donation” seems like a thinly veiled attempt to dump a politician who is actually critical of the vaccination agenda.

So who’s pulling Erin O’Toole’s strings? It seems everyone except the Canadian public.

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.

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. 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.

3. Important Links
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

4. The Downside To “Hate Speech” Laws

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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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.