CV #27(B): UNESCO Continues Crackdown On What It Calls “Misinformation”

UNESCO is still pushing efforts to combat “misinformation”, which of course is anything that conflicts with the official versions of events (the ever shifting versions). However, you aren’t supposed to notice such inconsistencies or gaps in logic.

UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources.

1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. For background information for this, see: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, and Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

This article is Part I for UNESCO agenda.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For example: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing. The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Sept 8 UNESCO article on “misinformation”.
https://archive.is/wbkP1

CLICK HERE, for $27M in research projects announced.
https://archive.is/uGjO6

CLICK HERE, for Ryerson gets $478,000 grant to study CV misinfo.
https://archive.is/Rjq9y
CLICK HERE
https://archive.is/qguDf

CLICK HERE, for UN Global Pulse mainpage.
https://archive.is/BGVUo
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Pulse policy page.
https://archive.is/Gg1l3

CLICK HERE, for International Telecommunication Union.
https://archive.is/tJjKD
ITU-COVID-19-activities

CLICK HERE, for UNESCO, and fighting fake news.
https://archive.is/JFCrx

CLICK HERE, for WHO, and reporting misinformation online.
https://archive.is/BC3ql

CLICK HERE, for UN “Verified” program.
CLICK HERE, for ShareVerified website.

4. Decisions On CV/Masks/Vaccines

2015 ONA Arbitration Ruling (Sault Area Hospital)
2015.ontario.college.of.nurses.mask.ruling

2016 ONA Arbitration Ruling (William Osler Health System)
2016.ona.masks.or.vaccinate.ruling

2018 ONA Arbitration Ruling (St. Michael’s Hospital)
2018.ontario.college.of.nurses.mask.ruling

2020 BC Ombudsman Ruling
2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

Oregon Court Rules Against Measures
Oregon SHIRTCLIFF ORDER

Wisconsin Court Says “Stay At Home” Orders Illegal
wisconson.may.2020.coronavirus.order.overturned

2020 Pennsylvania Judge rules against Governor
pennsylvania.covid.measures.illegal

The above 7 rulings are helpful to our cause. However, this recent one in Newfoundland and Labrador is a potential setback, as the Judge ruled travel restrictions are justified.

September 2020 NFLD Rules Travel Ban Justified
Justice-Donald-Burrage-decision-on-NL-travel-ban

I wonder if UNESCO would consider it “misinformation” to post about the several rulings with conflict with the official narratives of lockdowns, masks, and vaccinations.

scotus.allows.nevada.to.discriminate

scotus.allows.california.to.discriminate

scotus.on.religious.advertising

Finally, a few American rulings on enshrining freedom of religion in the face of a false pandemic. Unfortunately, these don’t really help the cause.

5. UNESCO Article On CV Misinformation

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be better able to spot the difference between information and misinformation about COVID-19, as a result of a new co-operation within the UN system.

The co-operation is supported by a grant of $4.5m from the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund.

The fund was specifically set up to support work to track and understand the spread of the virus; ensure patients get the care they need and frontline workers get essential supplies and information; and accelerate research and development of a vaccine and treatments for all who need them.

For UNESCO, the contribution to the partnership will be in training journalists and supporting community radio.

Thousands of journalists will be trained for updated reporting on the pandemic and related disinformation through a series of online interactive briefings with experts and mentors.

UNESCO will also work with partners to produce content for radio channels, particularly in vernacular languages for areas with scarce or no Internet access, with the topic covering preventive measures, debunking myths about the virus, and highlighting the importance of non-discrimination and solidarity.

Part of the package will be training on how to operate a home-based radio studio during lockdown.

WHO, through its offices in Africa, is developing an “Infodemic Response Alliance” that will bring together ministries of health, civil society, media, fact checkers and UN actors to ensure early warnings of misinformation. Other WHO activities are planned in the Eastern Mediterranean, European, the Americas, and South East Asia regions.

Besides UNESCO and the WHO, the other UN partners include UN Global Pulse and the ITU (The International Telecommunication Union).

The UN Global Pulse, within the UN Secretary-General’s innovation team, will use artificial intelligence to analyse radio coverage for trends in misinformation such as rumours around vaccines, promotions of false cures, and discussions about financial hardships. “We will use this infodemic intelligence to support community level responses and do predictive analytics to fuel decision making across all pillars of the UN response,” says Global Pulse’s chief data scientist Miguel Luengo-Oroz.

The ITU will engage with more than 200 mobile network operators to use short message service (SMS) and voice messages to provide healthcare advice. “We will also share good practices such as replacing default ringtones with special caller tunes containing voice messages about the virus,” says ITU’s Roman Chestnov.

As part of the project, WHO will create an Infodemic Observatory with the Fondazione Bruno Kessler as well as a suite of scientific tools to manage the infodemic, including through “social listening” and assessing people’s vulnerability to misinformation.

The UN’s Health Organization will also initiate a pilot project with Ryerson University in Canada to create a “Global Misinformation and Factchecking Centre” to serve as a comprehensive public repository of fact-checking organizations around the world and to identify and document best practices for tackling the COVID-19 infodemic crisis and help to inform future policy interventions.

Yes, that is the entire September 8, 2020 article, quoted verbatim. Nothing has been added to alter its meaning. It’s difficult to make UNESCO look worse than it already does, but let’s try.

6. Canada Takes Grant Applications In February

Even as the Canadian Government was telling public in February that there was nothing to worry about, it was shoveling out millions in grants money. There were at least a few grants designed to “study and counter” misinformation. Ottawa knew even then that this would last a long time, but lied about it.

7. Ryerson Uni Gets CV Misinformation Grant

TORONTO — 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, researchers at Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management and Royal Roads University will collaborate 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.

Professor Anatoliy Gruzd, Canada Research Chair of Social Media Data Stewardship and Philip Mai, Director of Business and Communications at the Social Media Lab at the Ted Rogers School, will examine how COVID-19 related misinformation propagates across social media platforms and will be developing a real-time information dashboard that will help the public track efforts to debunk coronavirus misinformation online.

It’s disturbing that the Government of Canada (taxpayers, really) decided to give a University almost half a million dollars to combat misinformation. Worse still, are 2 details:

First, this was March 12 the article went off. The deal had already been inked, and Canada hadn’t even officially declared a pandemic yet. Almost like they knew in advance.

Second, this study was to last 2 years. The Canadian Government knew before March 12, 2020, that this “pandemic” would last for at least 2 years.

8. UN Global Pulse, AI Implementation

UN Global Pulse leads efforts to develop data privacy, protection and ethics principles, engages privacy specialists and regulators to contribute to policy frameworks for the use of big data, and works with governments to facilitate synergies and knowledge exchange to create strategies for the ethical use of artificial intelligence. The areas of work that our policy agenda focuses on are:

Data Privacy & Protection
UN Global Pulse advocates for the accountable and responsible use of data and provides expertise to UN partners and to governments in developing data privacy and data protection frameworks.

AI Ethics
UN Global Pulse promotes human rights-based AI innovation through the development of standards and guidelines to ensure a safe and equitable digital future.

Digital Cooperation
UN Global Pulse works to foster global digital cooperation and realize the potential of digital technologies to advance human well-being and mitigate the risks of misuse and missed use of data and artificial intelligence.

All of this sounds completely harmless, but then, it always does.

So-called “digital cooperation” is actually a reference to a subgroup at the United Nations, who is working towards global internet governance. Global Pulse works with AI, supports digital cooperation, and is involved in efforts to combat “misinformation” online. What could possibly go wrong?

9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

ITU-COVID-19-activities

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, digital technologies and connectivity have become a critical enabler facilitating business continuity and connecting people more than ever before. The sudden increase in internet usage and upsurge in data consumption are putting heavy pressure on existing broadband networks decreasing the quality and speed of the Internet. We are also confronted with increased opportunity for digital technology’s potential for misuse – from cyberattacks and crimes to misinformation, as well as burgeoning issues related to data privacy and security. Most importantly, as 46% of the global population/almost 3.6. billion people are still without internet, the lack of connectivity and issues of accessibility will become even more pressing: translating directly into missed socio-economic opportunities and missed learning opportunities, and so widening the digital divide and inequality gap in our society.

This Webinar series started with a discussion on assessing current connectivity gaps and challenges in different regions, followed by best practices and success connectivity stories; capacity building (to implement misinformation management); online safety and security, with a final discussion session on how to balance public health, privacy and human rights. Each session was prepared and organized jointly by strategic partners, including leading UN agencies on action to address the subject matter.

The ITU also has a very long section on “digital cooperation”. Again, this is code for global governance of the internet. The ITU, Global Pulse, and the United Nations as a whole seem to be completely for this agenda.

10. UNESCO, Journalist “Training” On Pandemic

Yes, UNESCO is actually training journalists on combatting misinformation around this “pandemic”. In short, only official sources can be trusted.

11. WHO On Reporting Misinformation

The World Health Organization actually provides guidelines on how to report what it calls “misinformation”, on common social media platforms.

12. UN ‘Verified’ Initiative Flood Digital Space

https://twitter.com/UN/status/1263499796016435202
https://archive.is/LzGVz

28 May 2020 — As the world unifies amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations recently launched ‘Verified’ — an initiative aimed at delivering trusted information, life-saving advice and stories from the best of humanity. The initiative also invites the public to help counter the spread of COVID-19 misinformation by sharing fact-based advice with their communities.

Melissa Fleming: Verified is a United Nations initiative that calls on people around the world to become “information volunteers” and share UN-verified, science-based content to keep their families and communities safe and connected. You can sign up to become “information volunteers” at www.shareverified.com.

The initiative is a collaboration with Purpose, one of the world’s leading social mobilization organizations, and supported by the IKEA Foundation and Luminate. Led by the UN Department for Global Communications, the Verified initiative will produce a daily feed of compelling, shareable content around three themes: science – to save lives; solidarity – to promote local and global cooperation; and solutions – to advocate support for impacted populations. It will also promote recovery packages that tackle the climate crisis and address the root causes of poverty, inequality and hunger. Our priority audience: those who are being targeted with misinformation. We are also partnering with First Draft, an organization which closely monitors the spread of misinformation.

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis

13. Silencing Legitimate Criticisms

Make no mistake. This isn’t any well intentioned effort to prevent serious harm from coming to the public. Instead, this is about coordination to PREVENT THE EXPOSURE of harmful efforts, and to show the truth to the world.

This is censorship, masked as public safety.

Twitter: Consulting Our Government Over Taxes, Privacy, Elections And Content Regulation

Twitter, just like Facebook and Google, has been meeting with public officials in the Federal Government. It would be nice to have more information beyond the blurb on the files.

Twitter information in the Lobbying Registry
https://archive.is/4pCl5

1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, Facebook and Google lobbying.

2. Twitter Lobbying Communications Reports

12 communications reports in the last few years. That means 12 separate meetings, not necessary 12 people who were lobbied. And this is just what’s on the books. There may be a lot more that wasn’t recorded.

3. Twitter Involved In Public Safety?

On May 19, Twitter representatives met with the Office of the Minister of Public Safety (which is Bill Blair’s Office). Interesting. What is the connection between Twitter, and public safety? Do certain ideas or points of view need to be censored?

4. Rempel & Twitter: Privacy, Access To Info

Michelle Rempel met with Twitter on February 5, under the heading of privacy and access to information. Getting some more specifics would have been nice. Also, isn’t this a little weird, given Rempel’s habit of blocking everyone on Twitter?

5. What Exactly Is Twitter’s Agenda?

Subject Matter Details
.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.
.
Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.

It’s quite disturbing to see Twitter meeting with officials over the regulation of online content and social media during elections. A conspiracy theorist might think that these people want to ban or limit certain topics, in order to influence general elections.

6. Michele Austin Now Works For Twitter

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michele-austin-87922525/
https://archive.is/3tFFV

Austin spent many years working for various Conservative/Alliance politicians, even in the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition. From February 2006 to July 2007, Austin was the Chief of Staff in the Industry Minister’s Office. At that time, it was headed by Maxime Bernier, who now “identifies” as a populist. From June 2011 to December 2012, Austin was Chief of Staff of Public Works, Status of Women, Shared Services Canada, Minister’s Office.

The Manning Center refers to the Koch-funded “conservative” think tank headed by former Alliance Leader Preston Manning. It seems that the time in the Official Leader’s Office has paid off.

A longtime political hack is now Twitter’s main lobbyist in Canada (the only one listed who spends 20% or more time lobbying). This is shocking, but not surprising.

7. Other Twitter Lobbyist Information

PAUL BURNS
https://www.linkedin.com/in/electricartist/

VIJAYA GADDE
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vijaya-gadde-2864a75/

CARLOS MONJE
https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlos-monje/

8. Reminder: O’Toole Was Facebook Lobbyist

From earlier: New Conservative Party of Canada head Erin O’Toole was a lobbyist for Facebook before getting into politics.

Worth noting: His firm, (the now defunct), Heenan Blaikie had both Pierre Trudeau, and Jean Chretien as partners at one time. Heenan Blaikie was also heavily infiltrated by the Desmarais Family.

9. Merger Between Social Media & Politics

Considering the sway that lobbyists hold over politicians, it is rather disturbing to see this happen. Politicians — or political operatives — shouldn’t be lobbying in areas of social media. Similarly, lobbyists for social media companies shouldn’t be getting into politics.

With all of this in mind, it would be nice to have detailed records and accounts of what actually goes on in these meetings. But that’s unlikely to ever happen.

Ottawa, Privy Council Lobbied By Facebook, Crestview Strategy, O’Toole

Facebook meeting with the Canadian Government over legislation which is set to influence digital media. Facebook claims that many of these meetings are solicited by the Government itself.

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for Crestview Strategy’s mainpage.

CLICK HERE, for Facebook lobbyist, Erin O’Toole of HB firm.
https://archive.is/ennLd

CLICK HERE, for Kevin Chan’s LinkedIn page.
https://archive.is/Ngbtb
CLICK HERE, for Kevin Chan, Privy Council Office Holder.
https://archive.is/3Mwny

CLICK HERE, for Zakery Blais LinkedIn page.

3. Context For This Article

The lobbying firm, Crestview Strategy, is being covered once again. This time, it is because of Crestview’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Facebook. It’s time to show some of the secrets the public may not know about this.

It was addressed in Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 48 how Crestview Strategy was lobbying the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance. However, Crestview has its fingers in many more pies than just the drug industry.

4. CPC Head Erin O’Toole Ex-Facebook Lobbyist

Less than a year after serving as a lobbyist for Facebook, O’Toole announced he was going to enter Federal politics.

5. Kevin Chan: Privy Council, OLO, Facebook

In the lobbying records, it is mandatory to disclose all senior officers who hold (or have held), public office. The registry lists Kevin Chan, who held several positions with the Privy Council. Interestingly, none of that appears on Chan’s LinkedIn profile.

Also, from 2009 until 2011, Chan worked for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. At that time, it was Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff is now a Vice-President at George Soros’ Open Society.

It’s worth pointing out the the Leader of the Official Opposition is now Erin O’Toole, who was also lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blaikie.

6. Conflict Of Interest With Privy Council

As can be seen in the last section, Kevin Chan worked for the Privy Council’s Office for several years, before joining Facebook. He is now one of their senior officers.

Dominic LeBlanc is currently the President of the Privy Council. He has publicly suggested passing laws to combat “misinformation online”. In order to do this, LeBlanc would have to get social media outlets like Facebook onboard with that agenda.

It seems that Facebook Canada (using their in-house Council), has been lobbying the Canadian Government — and specifically the Privy Council — a lot in the last few years. But don’t worry, that won’t lead to a crack down on free speech or anything like that.

7. Zakery Blais Worked For AG David Lametti

His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

Blais worked for a sitting MP, according to his Crestview Strategy profile, but does not identify the person. However, on his LinkedIn page, it is listed as David Lametti. Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary at that time, but is now the sitting Attorney General of Canada.

On August 1st, Blais renewed his Crestview lobbying registration for the Gates financed GAVI. See here.

8. Jason Clark: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

Jason holds a Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Western University, and a Master of Arts degree in International Studies and Diplomacy with a Specialization in Global Energy & Climate Change Policy from SOAS, University of London in London, United Kingdom. Jason serves on the Board of the Ottawa Bicycle Club and volunteered for several Ottawa-area Liberal Party of Canada candidates during the 2015 election campaign.

Crestview’s Jason Clark has been a lobbyist for both Facebook and GAVI. He also worked as an election volunteer for the Liberal Candidates in Ottawa for the 2015 election.

9. Chad Rogers: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

Chad Rogers is a strategist, entrepreneur and founding partner at Crestview Strategy, a public affairs agency.
.
Chad helps leaders, companies and industry associations make their case and get things approved. He has been a public opinion researcher, senior advisor to a Premier, and has served as an advisor to political party and government leaders across the globe.

Rogers was a founding partner of Crestview Strategy (as was Rob Silver, who is Katie Telford’s husband). He has also been registered as a lobbyist for both Facebook and GAVI. Interesting, however, he won’t list the Premier, but a search on LinkedIn identifies it as the 1999-2003 Government — who was led by John Hamm.

10. Crestview Strategy & Facebook Lobbyists

Although they haven’t all filed formal communications reports, it seems that Facebook always has at least 1 or 2 lobbyists on staff, ready to go

11. Everyone Should Have A License

A proposal earlier this year to make all media outlets in Canada have a license. The Government backtracked a bit when there was a public backlash.

Of course, it must be asked: where did this idea come from? Was it some bureaucrat with the CRTC? Was it Facebook and Google? Was it some other group who wants to shut down free speech?

12. Big Tech Collusion On “Pandemic”

This was addressed in another article, but it seems that social media companies are fully on board with promoting the vaccine agenda, and stamping out “misinformation” of their platforms.

13. This Doesn’t Look Like Arms Length

There is little real separation here. Lobbyists are paid to influence politicians on a variety of issues, including media, free speech, taxation, and vaccines. As such, the interests of the public are given little, if any, real consideration.

One last point: this isn’t just a Liberal problem. Crestview Strategy, and similar groups, have ties to many political parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada.

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

Getting your own politicians to protect free speech is difficult enough. How does it work when the rules are being drafted by unelected officials in other countries?

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter, big tech collusion in coronavirus, and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

IF you think that Canadian laws don’t do enough to protect free speech in general, or online free speech more specifically, just wait until it is regulated globally.

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

2006: Athens, Greece, https://archive.is/g2NnZ
2007: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, https://archive.is/uiFsE
2008: Hyderabad, India, https://archive.is/6rV0k
2009: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, https://archive.is/dS2SO
2010: Vilnius, Lithuania, https://archive.is/uzC3U
2011: Nairobi, Kenya, https://archive.is/Dl71r
2012: Baku, Azerbaijan, https://archive.is/XUDaX
2013: Bali, Indonesia, https://archive.is/wksxQ
2014: Istanbul, Turkey, https://archive.is/XKnUe
2015: João Pessoa, Brazil, https://archive.is/1CiSE
2016: Jalisco, Mexico, https://archive.is/Rkazl
2017: Geneva, Switzerland, https://archive.is/mtw6w
2018: Paris, France, https://archive.is/zEsjK
2019: Berlin, Germany, https://archive.is/KGwzo

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

What Key Issues are discussed at the IGF?
As an example, key issues discussed at the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017 include:
.
– The impact of modern technologies on industry, society, and the economy;
– Multistakeholderism and Multilateralism and the setting of global norms;
– The new digital economy & sustainable development — providing opportunities or deepening divides?
– The role of government in policy making in the digital age;
– The emergence of a global, Internet society;
– Cybersecurity and cyber-threats;
Artificial intelligence (AI);
– Critical Internet resources;
– Blockchains and bitcoins;
Fake news;
– Access, inclusion and diversity;
– The pressing need for security in the Internet of Things;
– Digital divides;

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Advocates of strong free speech laws will notice (in particular) the topics of the role of government, and fake news. Makes one wonder if various Heads of State will decide what is real news and what is fake.

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

How is the global Internet Governance Forum funded?
.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat – based in Geneva, is sustained financially through the extra-budgetary Trust Fund Account managed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The nature of the IGF Trust Fund is such that it is voluntary and multi-donor driven, with varying contributions from Governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community, the private sector and the civil society. The IGF Trust Fund covers the administrative and operational costs of the IGF Secretariat including personnel, fellowships, and meeting costs (venues, interpretation, logistical costs, etc.); and funds the travel costs of MAG Members from developing countries. More details about the list of donors and funds received are available online. The Trust Fund also provides support to various intersessional activities, inter alia Best Practice Forums, major policy initiatives such as Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s), etc.

Each year, the organizational and conference cost of the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum is provided for by the Government of the host country, administered through a Host Country Agreement signed between the Government and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

  • Government of Finland
  • Government of Germany
  • European Commission
  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  • The Internet Society (ISOC)
  • Number Resource Organization (NRO)
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • Government of Switzerland
  • Government of the United States
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • Government of Japan
  • Nominet UK
  • Tides Foundation
  • Verizon
  • IGFSA
  • Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  • AT&T
  • China Energy Fund Committee
  • Verisign
  • Afilias Global Registry Services
  • Facebook
  • Government of Portugal – Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Siemens Aktiengesellschaft – Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks
  • Google
  • Government of Norway
  • Government of Sweden
  • Amazon
  • UNINETT Norid
  • The Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • European Registry for Internet domains
  • CISCO
  • auDA Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)
  • Coordination Center for TLD
  • Danish Internet Forum
  • Politecnico di Torino
  • Community DNS
  • Government of the Republic of Korea
  • European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association
  • MCADE, LLC
  • NIC-MEXICO
  • Nic.at The Austrian Registry
  • Summit Strategies International
  • NIKKEI DigitalCORE
  • Ribose Inc.

In addition to the funding of various governments, the following names should be familiar to almost everyone: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon, and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues. We’re having this conversation under unusual circumstances at a pivotal moment in history.

In a world already fundamentally transformed by digital technologies, the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing have propelled the adoption of information and communications technologies and transformed the bedrock of humanity’s means of survival and prosperity: communication. To cooperate, we must communicate, and to communicate nowadays, we must use digital means. This is an important time for Internet governance.

COVID-19 has raised the stakes for global digital cooperation. Over the last few months, my office, in partnership with the international telecommunications unit, organized a series of webinars on digital cooperation in times of COVID-19 and beyond. These discussions considered challenges when urgent cooperation is required, such as with regard to the ongoing deficit in connectivity, with regard to human rights challenges and trust and security issues.

.
Health systems today don’t just have to treat the sick. They also have to deal with cyber attacks and the spread of dangerous, life-threatening misinformation.

In follow-up to the Secretary-General’s call for a global cease far, I also called for a digital cease fire. Global cooperation is necessary if we wish to overcome the pandemic without drastically compromising values like privacy and freedom of speech.

A few days ago, the Secretary-General presented his roadmap for digital cooperation which sets forth his vision for how the international community should engage on these and other key digital issues outlined in the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The roadmap describes a range of actions for all stakeholders from the United Nations system to member states, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the technical community. The United Nations, including the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, can truly serve as a platform for informed discussion and evidence-based decisions and practices.

The High-level Panel had noted, and I quote, “a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements, a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active and diverse participation by governments and the private sector, and more inclusive processes and better follow-up,” end of quote.

The IGF should be retooled to become more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. We must ensure that the IGF is a forum that governments value and want to attend while preserving the important space it represents for other stakeholder engagement.

The IGF’s coordinating and strategic role needs to be further strengthened. The roadmap includes a series of suggestions to further enhance the IGF, such as by improving fundraising, inclusion, and outcomes. I hope you will all be engaged in the follow-up of the action areas highlighted in the Secretary-General’s roadmap, and I hope you will all share your views specifically on how the IGF can be made even more responsive to the evolving challenges of digital cooperation.

Thank you for your engagement and support of the IGF and digital cooperation. We welcome and we need your ideas, your proposals, and your continued enthusiasm and support.
Thank you.

Don’t worry. It’s not like this will lead to a global body deciding what can or can’t be talked about or shared on the internet. This will absolutely never be abused.

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

The Global Internet Governance Forum goes on to propose several different ways that “digital cooperation” could be implemented on a world-wide scale. But don’t worry. It’s all just discussion, and nothing that gets suggested will ever become legally binding.

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

Save the date: The virtual Canadian IGF will be Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, 2020.
The Canadian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is Canada’s leading multi-stakeholder forum on digital and internet policy issues.
.
The inaugural event took place last year in Toronto and brought together over 200 representatives from government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle pressing public policy issues facing the internet.
.
The Canadian IGF is a national initiative of the global United-Nations-convened Internet Governance Forum, which holds annual meetings at different locations around the world. The Canadian IGF will produce a report detailing the unique, regional priorities facing Canadian stakeholders in attendance. This report will then be fed into the global IGF.

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

This isn’t just some abstract UN group far off. There exists a Canadian branch of the Internet Governance Forum, and its agenda is pretty much what one would expect.

Throughout the discussions, several common themes emerged across subject areas. These
included trends towards increased regulation; the necessity for plain language content; and,
the need for education and digital literacy. For stakeholders engaging in Internet governance
domestically and abroad, priorities going forward include the need for:
• A transnational, multistakeholder approach to internet governance.
• Awareness of/education on the issues, and how users can participate in discussions
related to internet governance.
• Solutions developed by any stakeholder group that are thoughtful, evidence-based, and
proportionate.
• Transparency from both governments and businesses in order to promote public trust
and build the capacity of users.

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

That is from page 5 on the report. They explicitly state that they view internet regulation as a global concept.

Key Issues
• Fake news and misinformation.
• Hateful online speech.
• Global and domestic threats.
• Data security

Discussion Overview
The panel’s discussion surrounded three main topics: 1) While foreign actors are a threat, domestic actors are an equal or higher risk when it comes to the dissemination of fake news and the proliferation of hateful speech online. Social media platforms also have to balance discouraging fake news, while ensuring they are not censoring a legitimate group; 2) Political actors are increasingly using social media platforms as a tool to get messages out; and 3) In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, academics have seen social media platforms reduce their access to datasets to study the fake news problem.

A recent report on Canadians’ use of social media shows that 94% of internet users here in this country have at least one social media account. The exposure to potential misinformation and disinformation campaigns is enormous.

Both technological and policy-based solutions are needed to confront the fake news problem. Facebook, for instance, has a three-pronged strategy focusing on people, technology and, increasingly, partnerships. Facebook has gone from 10,000 to 30,000 people dedicated to working on this challenge. In Q2 and Q3 of last year, Facebook removed approximately 1.5 billion fake accounts. The development of digital literacy skills is required to help users discern between real and fake news. The need for civility among users was also stressed. Canada must decide on its approach to fake news and newer technology, generally. Do we want to follow the lead of the United States or Europe?

A void has been created in the news world because traditional journalism is fading quickly. Social media platforms have become a new distribution channel for news. Panelists disagreed on whether the problem can be solved through technology or if it is more deeply rooted in human causes for which technology has no response

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

From pages 18/19 in the report: it seems that outlets like Facebook have taken it upon themselves to determine what accounts are fake, and what counts as fake news.

The authors of this report, (and of IGF more broadly), keep referring to “international stakeholders”. It seems to imply that other parties should have some say over free speech on the internet, instead of Canadians themselves.

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

It’s interesting that the report talks about the decline of traditional media (which is true), but omits the tax-payer funded bailout that the Canadian Government gave. In effect, old-stock media in Canada is now subsidized even more so. Even without the IGF, the media is already pretty corrupt.

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

This was covered a few months ago, but UNESCO has been embarking on a serious campaign against what it calls “misinformation”. UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources for information on coronavirus.

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

Tremendous progress has been made internationally in accepting that international law and the UN Charter apply in cyberspace. He urged the private sector to be involved in countering the number of malevolent tools being deployed in cyberspace, especially in developing more secure software.

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age
.
The consensus from the session on Fake News was that part of the complexity to tackle disinformation was the challenge to define it. From election interference to stoking up hate or increase religious hatred, there are also other multilayered levels such as spam, and misleading types of content like opinion pieces masking as objective journalism.

Irene Poetrant, Senior Researcher for Citizen Lab of University of Toronto agreed, saying definitions matter and in order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is important for government, private sector, civil society and institutions to work together, and that fake news is not just a problem of the west but a global problem.

“Misinformation is the antithesis of Google’s mission”, said Jake Lucchi, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact. Partnering with journalists, governments, and third parties, they try to find product solutions to identify misinformation and find ways to surface authoritative content. “Young people need to have critical thinking and skills to be able to navigate the internet and check our sources.” Improved algorithms and having policies in place to prohibit hate speech are also key – providers have to ensure misinformation are not allowed on their platforms.

That page is from the November 2018 meeting is Paris. While it sounds benevolent on the surface, who exactly will be the arbitrator of what is “fake news”? Remember, UNESCO (as an example), repeatedly says that only official sources can be trusted. This comes in spite of a wealth of information that CONTRADICTS those narratives. This raises the question of can valid media be shut down if factual reporting is tagged as “misinformation”?

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

Think that the “Digital Charter” was an idea suddenly concocted? It wasn’t. The UN Digital Cooperation Panel was launched in the Summer of 2018. When the New Zealand shooting happened in March 2019, the stage had already been set.

In a similar vein, the mass shooting in Nova Scotia appears to be a pretext for the Federal Government imposing a mass gun grab.

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

11 June 2020 – New York
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres presented today a set of recommended actions for the international community to help ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. The Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, global effort to address a range of issues related to the Internet, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies.

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation comes at a critical inflection point for digital issues, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating digitization and magnifying both opportunities and challenges of digital technology.

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

But don’t worry. These resolutions and agreements won’t ever become legally binding, or anything like that. These are just ideas being thrown around.

CV #62: WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

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

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for WHO, basic documents, constitution.
CLICK HERE, for FAQ on WHO Emergency Committee.
https://archive.is/Ok5jx

CLICK HERE, for Canada joins WHO in 1946.
https://archive.is/nwz4S

CLICK HERE, for 1959 Convention on Immunities/Privileges.
https://archive.is/wwRfk
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

CLICK HERE, for 1969 World Health Assembly, Boston.
https://archive.is/vJJUE
CLICK HERE, for official records, of WHA (Boston, 1969)

CLICK HERE, for Quarantine Act legislation info (2005).
https://archive.is/YrTHz
CLICK HERE, for Quarantine Act, recorded votes (2005).
https://archive.is/ZbPDU

CLICK HERE, for WHA Assembly, (2020)
https://archive.is/kofuW
CLICK HERE, for 73rd World Health Assembly.
ihr.may.2020.who.convention.free.speech

CLICK HERE, for “ABOUT” International Health Regulations.
https://archive.is/OgNwP

CLICK HERE, for International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.)

CLICK HERE, for frequently asked questions on IHR.
ihr.frequently.asked.questions

CLICK HERE, for IHR, areas of implementation, 2005.
ihr.2005.areas.for.implementation

CLICK HERE, for WHO’s 2005 briefing on health obligations.
ihr.brief.2005.international.obligations

CLICK HERE, for WHO’s 2005 section on required notifications.
ihr.brief.2005.reporting.requirements

CLICK HERE, for IHR “points of entry” documents.
ihr.brief.2005.points.of.entry

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

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

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

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

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

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

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

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

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

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

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

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

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

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

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

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

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

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

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

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

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

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

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

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

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

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

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

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

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

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

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

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

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

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

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

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

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

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

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

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

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

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

TSCE #34: Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF), Fighting For The Extermination Of Women

LEAF comes across as such a well intentioned and benevolent group. However, dig a little deeper, and the problems start to show through.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards?

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, to search Corporations Canada registry.
CLICK HERE, for funding announcement for LEAF.
CLICK HERE, for LEAF and so-called “reproductive justice”
CLICK HERE, for calls to finance foreign abortions.
CLICK HERE, for Private Member’s Bill C-225.
CLICK HERE, for LEAF trying to ban Meghan Murphy.
CLICK HERE, for LEAF wants mercy for drug mule.
CLICK HERE, for LEAF supports ON sex-ed program.
CLICK HERE, for RCMP and illegal organ trade.
CLICK HERE, for Bill S-204, buying trafficked organs abroad.

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking
Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

3. Two Federal Non-Profit Corporations

[1] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND FOUNDATION
Corporation Number: 255753-3
Business Number (BN): 880802897RC0001

[2] WOMEN’S LEGAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FUND INC.
Corporation Number: 189741-1
Business Number (BN): 108219916RC0001

A point of clarification: there are actually 2 separate Federal corporations registered with the Government. They have different (though similar) names, and different corporate and business numbers. They also have different addresses in Toronto.

It’s worth pointing out that LEAF has branches across Canada and the United States. They operate with the same basic philosophy.

4. Mental Gymnastics In LEAF Agenda

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms. For more information, please visit www.leaf.ca.

LEAF claims to be committed to a variety of good causes. However, their logic seems messed up. While they want better childcare benefits, it’s okay to kill the child up to the point of birth. And even when the mother DOES kill the child after birth, the penalties should be reduced.

And by what stretch of logic is murdering children compatible with preventing violence?

5. Canadian Taxpayers Are Financing This

Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is receiving $880,000 to develop a modern, intersectional, and feminist strategic litigation plan that will enable feminists and gender equality advocates to address systemic barriers to gender equality and eliminate gender discrimination.

Canadian taxpayers will be footing the bill for some $880,000, for this 2019 grant. This is to develop a litigation plan to for what they refer to as fighting for gender equality. It’s unclear from the announcement how much (if any) will end up being diverted into actual court challenges.

6. LEAF’s Take On “Reproductive Justice”

1987 Baby R.
LEAF argued that children not yet born shouldn’t be allowed to be taken by government officials. Custody should be for people already alive.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1988-baby-r

1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
LEAF argued that the right to life should apply to the mother (and not to the child). The criminal code and charter shouldn’t apply to the unborn baby.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-borowski

1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
LEAF argued that biological fathers should have no say over whether the child lives or dies, and that otherwise, it is an attempt to control the mother using the child as a proxy.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1989-daigle

1991 R. v. Sullivan
LEAF argued that 2 midwives convicted of criminal negligence causing death (for the death of the baby) should have that charge thrown out, since the baby isn’t actually a person.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1991-sullivan

1996 R v. Lewis
LEAF argued in favour maintaining “bubble zones”. These effectively were areas where abortion protesting would be banned. Free speech is fine, just not in certain areas.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1996-lewis

1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
LEAF argued against the the state’s ability to detain a pregnant women, who was harming her own child. In this case, the mother was sniffing glue.
leaf.intervenor.factum.1997-winnipeg-child-family

2003 R. v. Demers
LEAF argued again against the rights of people who were protesting abortion, although the arguments differed somewhat.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2003-demers

2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
LEAF once again arguing that “bubble zones” need to be maintained, and that freedom of speech needs to be curtailed in order to ensure smooth access to abortion.
leaf.intervenor.factum.2008-R-V-WATSON-SPRATT-Factum

2016 R v. MB
LEAF argued that a woman who killed her newborn child should not face the wrath of the criminal justice system, and should be cut a break
leaf.intervenor.factum.2016.r.v.mb.infanticide

LEAF is Pro-Life?
Yeah, not really seeing that here.

LEAF is Anti-Life

  • 1987 Baby R
  • 1989 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)
  • 1989 Daigle v. Tremblay
  • 1991 R. v. Sullivan
  • 1996 R v. Lewis
  • 1997 Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.)
  • 2003 R. v. Demers
  • 2006 Watson v. R; Spratt v. R
  • 2016 R v. MB

Keep in mind, these are not cases that impact LEAF directly. Instead, they go searching for cases to act as an intervenor (or interested party). In short, they insert themselves into OTHER cases in order to get the outcomes they want.

An astute person will realize that LEAF is fundamentally anti-free speech. Among the challenges they brag about is getting free speech restricted in order to facilitate abortion access.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but should give a pretty good idea of the things they stand against: rights for unborn children.

7. LEAF Wants Foreign Abortions Funded Too

As organizations who are deeply committed to the rights of women and girls, we are very concerned by recent statements regarding the Government of Canada’s refusal to fund safe abortion services abroad, including in cases of rape and for young women and girls in forced marriages. This approach represents a serious setback on women’s human rights and the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and girls in early and forced marriages.

We call on the Canadian government to:
1. Include access to safe abortion services as part of the package of sexual and reproductive health services funded by Canadian international cooperation initiatives;
2. Support effective strategies to ensure that survivors of sexual violence and young women and girls in early and forced marriage have access to a comprehensive package of sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion; and
3. Produce clear policy for Canada’s international initiatives that adopts a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health.

What about the babies being killed? Don’t their human rights matter? Oh, that’s right, these groups don’t consider babies to be people.

Sincerely,
The undersigned organizations:
.
-Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) / Coalition pour le droit à l’avortement au Canada (CDAC)
-Action Canada for Population and Development / Action Canada pour la population et le développement
-Amnesty International Canada (English)
-Amnistie International Canada (Francophone)
-Canadian Council of Muslim Women
-Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
-Canadian Federation of University Women
-Canadian Women’s Foundation
-Choice in Health Clinic
-Clinique des femmes de l’Outaouais
-Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN)
-Kensington Clinic
-Institute for International Women’s Rights – Manitoba
-Inter Pares
-MATCH International Women’s Fund
-Oxfam Canada
-Oxfam Quebec
Planned Parenthood Ottawa
-West Coast LEAF
-Women’s Health Clinic, Winnipeg
-Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund / Fonds d’action et d’education juridiques pour les femmes
-YWCA Canada

(also addressed to)

-CC The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada
.
-CC Hélène Laverdière, NPD, MP
NDP International Development Critic
.
-CC Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, MP
Liberal International Development and Status of Women Critic
.
-CC Paul Dewar, NDP, MP
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Marc Garneau, Liberal, MP
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic
.
-CC Niki Ashton, NDP, MP
NDP Status of Women Critic

Not content with killing Canadian children, this coalition demands that the Canadian Government finance foreign abortions as well. That is correct. Use taxpayer money to pay to kill children in other countries.

It’s not at all a surprise to see a Planned Parenthood Ottawa has joined this group in making the call. After all, Planned Parenthood is involved in trafficking organs.

It never seems to dawn on these people that in many parts of the world, girls and women are viewed as far less than boys and men. This leads often to SEX SELECTIVE abortions. Is it really a feminist idea to deliberately target female babies?

8. No protection For Unborn Victims Of Crime

Considering the 1989 Boroski intervention (see list of cases above), it’s no surprise that LEAF, and other feminist groups oppose Bill C-225. This would have made it an additional crime to injury or kill a fetus while in the commission of another offense.

9. LEAF Forcing Abortion/Euth On Doctors

There was a 2019 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeals. It mandated that doctors either had to perform abortions and/or euthanasia, or provide a referral to someone who would. LEAF was one of the groups pushing it. They had no standing, other than to push their own pro-death views on others.

10. LEAF Wants Gender Ideology Critic Banned

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is troubled by the decision of the Toronto Public Library (the “TPL”) to rent one of its branch spaces to a group hosting an event with Meghan Murphy, who has a track record for denying the existence and rights of trans women. We are particularly concerned with Murphy’s history of publicly opposing efforts to codify the rights of trans people, specifically trans women, including her vocal opposition to federal human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

LEAF was founded in 1985 with a mandate to advance substantive equality for women and girls in Canada. LEAF has long been committed to a vision of feminism that is inclusive of all, regardless of sex, gender identity or gender expression. LEAF’s advocacy is and remains focused on challenging sex and gender discrimination that results in inequality for self-identified women and girls. The long-term success of this mission demands that LEAF work towards challenging and dismantling patriarchy, in all its forms.

LEAF believes freedom of speech plays an important role in strengthening and upholding substantive equality. Holding space for respectful dialogue among diverse viewpoints is essential to this work. However, LEAF has long maintained that freedom of speech is not absolute. Like all rights enjoyed by Canadians, freedom of speech must be balanced with other fundamental rights and freedoms, especially equality. Speech that perpetuates harmful stereotypes only serves to further marginalize and exclude an already vulnerable population and does not merit protection.

In a case of “eating your own“, LEAF tried to get Meghan Murphy dis-invited from a Toronto talk on trans-activism. And Murphy is about as hardcore feminist as they come. According to her biography:

  • Bachelor’s degree in women’s studies
  • Master’s degree in women’s studies
  • Wrote for feminist publications
  • Believes in the wage-gap nonsense
  • Believes women are oppressed
  • Pro-abortion
  • Pro-gay agenda

Still, that wasn’t enough to prevent feminist and “women’s rights” groups life LEAF from turning against her.

For a group that “claims” to support women, one has to ask why LEAF is trying to take away the rights of a woman (Murphy), specifically her free speech.

Murphy does address legitimate issues that trans-activists are involved with, (such as sports, pronounc, etc…), and how they are conflicting head on with the rights of women. It seems that the committment to women’s rights can be tossed aside in favour of this extremely small group.

11. LEAF: Reduce Sentence For Drug Mule

Somehow, LEAF believes that arguing against a mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of smuggling 2kg of cocaine (worth some $200,000), is a woman’s rights issue. What about the women who are harmed as a result of the drug trade? Don’t they matter?

While not directly related to the abortion/organs issue, it’s still bizarre to see how this group feels entitled to meddle in other people’s cases.

12. LEAF Supports ON Sex-Ed Agenda

This week’s move is getting a thumbs-up from a national women’s legal organization that teaches older students about consent.

“It’s extremely important for everyone to understand what their rights and responsibilities are under the law,” said Kim Stanton, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which runs workshops for high school and university students. “Students need to know what’s OK and what’s not.

LEAF supports Ontario’s largely inappropriate sex-ed ciricculum.

13. Honourable Mention: Tanya Granic Allen

Candid honesty is extremely rare in political circles. However, this critique of LEAF and Leslyn Lewis, is a true gem. Also see the video. Well worth the 10 minutes or so.

Now, what is the result of anti-life laws becoming normal?

14. RCMP & Illegal Organ Trade

There are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. Like in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person’s life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals. The following facts depict the seedy underbelly of organ trafficking.

  • The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN GIFT) says the organ trade occurs in three broad categories: traffickers who force or deceive victims to give up an organ, those who sell their organs out of financial desperation, often only receiving a fraction of the profit or are cheated out of the money altogether and victims who are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without the victim’s knowledge.
  • Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime with a host of offenders, including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable person, the transporter, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the middleman and contractors, the buyers and the banks that store the organs.
  • And according to the UN GIFT, it’s a fact that the entire ring is rarely exposed.
  • A World Health Assembly resolution adopted in 2004 urges Member States to “take measures to protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from ‘transplant tourism’ and the sale of tissues’ and organs.
  • “Transplant tourism” is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. These recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants (WHO Bulletin). There are websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages, like a kidney transplant that ranges from US$70,000 to US$160,000.
  • There’s no law in Canada banning Canadians from taking part in transplant tourism — travelling abroad and purchasing organs for transplantation and returning home to Canada.
  • According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one out of 10 organ transplants involves a trafficked human organ, which amounts to about 10,000 a year.
  • While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases, corneas and human tissue are also illegally traded.
  • In a recent report, Global Financial Integrity says that illegal organ trade is on the rise, and it estimates that it generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year with a span over many countries.
  • In Iran, the only country where organ trade is legal, organ sales are closely monitored and the practice has eliminated the wait list for kidney transplants and has provided an increase in post-mortem organ donations, which aren’t remunerated in Iran.
  • A Harvard College study says donors come from impoverished nations, like countries in South America, Asia and Africa, while recipients are from countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel and Japan.
  • According to research out of Michigan State University that looked at the black market for human organs in Bangladesh, the average quoted rate for a kidney was US$1,400 but has dropped because of the abundant supply.
  • In Bangladesh, the trade is propelled by poverty, where 78 per cent of residents live on less than $2 a day. They give their organs to pay off loans and take care of their families. If they received the money at all, it disappears quickly and they are often left sick and unable to work after the operations.
  • The Voluntary Health Association of India estimates about 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year.
  • Given that the organ trade is often a transnational crime, international law enforcers must co-operate across borders to address the crimes.

This comes from a 2014 post on the RCMP’s website. Despite being several years old, it has a lot of useful information.

Now, it’s true that there are only so many people dying with usable organs. It’s also true that abducting and/or murdering people for their organs is risky, and can only be done so often. However, that isn’t really the case with aborted babies, as they typically have healthy organs. Sure, they are smaller, but still usable at some point.

Ever wonder why the recent push to have later and later abortions? It’s because the organs of a 35 week fetus are much more developed than those of a 20 week fetus.

15. UNODC On Organ, Human Trafficking

III. Guidance for response
.
A. Definitions
6. Article 3 (a) defines trafficking in persons:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

unodc.organ.and.human.trafficking

It’s illegal to kidnap, force, or otherwise coerce people into giving up organs. However, aborted babies (even very late term) are just considered property with no legal rights of their own. At least, this is the case in Canada.

This UNODC paper is from 2011. However, its information is still very relevant today.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is one of the consequences of the actions of groups like LEAF. Removing any sort of legal protection from the unborn creates legal carte blanche to harvest and sell their organs at will.

16. UNODC: Illegal Entry Facilitates T&S

Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review

This was addressed in Part 9, the connection between illegal immigration, and the trafficking and smuggling of migrants. However, in the context of organ harvesting, it does put the issue in a whole new light.

17. Bill S-204, Criminal Code Change

Senate Bill S-204 would make it criminal offence to go abroad for the purposes of obtaining organs where consent was not given. While promising, however, it hasn’t gone anywhere since being introduced. Now, would these penalties apply to the trafficked organs of aborted fetuses, or only to trafficked organs of people living for some period of time?

18. Abortion Fuels Organ Trafficking

Now, to tie all of this together: the abortion industry helps fuel the organ trafficking industry.

It’s a straightforward idea: in order to traffic organs in a large scale, there has to be a large, constant supply available.

The abortion industry (and their advocates) ensure this by waging lawfare. They fight in court to keep stripping away any protections unborn children may have. They also change the law to allow for later and later abortions, and thus, more developed organs. Advocates will gaslight others who make attempts to limit this, or enshrine rights for the children. Child rights must be removed in favour of women’s rights.

Is LEAF involved with trafficking organs? They don’t appear to be, but their frequent court efforts ensure that this will continue. Whether intentional of not, groups like LEAF are part of the problem.

And to be clear, LEAF openly supports restricting free speech, under the guise of protecting abortion and gender rights. Of course, open discourse on these subjects would immediately weaken their arguments.

19. Defending Non-Disclosure Of HIV

Note: this was added after the article was originally published. LEAF argued in a Parliamentary hearing that failure to disclose HIV status should be removed from sexual assault laws, and in some cases, decriminalized altogether. Way to protect women.

Hear the audio clip starting at 8:59:30.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248439