March 26: This is a picture of the respirator that the RCMP announces officer may arrive wearing. They ask that people not be afraid.
September 24: This is BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry, explicitly stating that respirators don’t seal properly when there is facial hair on the user. So why is the RCMP letting officers who won’t conform to safety standards remain on the force?
So…. is this a serious health crisis, or not?
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 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, 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. The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for BC Transit press release on masks.
In other pandering news: Sikhs don’t have to wear helmets while riding motorcycles in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. Perhaps the laws of gravity don’t apply to religious pieces of cloth.
3. BC Transits Masks For “Rider Comfort”
We recognize the advice from health professionals, including Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, has been to wear face coverings when physical distancing is not possible including on transit vehicles. Customers have indicated making the use of face coverings mandatory will create a more comfortable environment.
While face coverings will be mandatory, the policy will be implemented as an educational step without enforcement. The educational position is aligned with TransLink and other transit agencies in Canada.
We will work hard to ensure customers are aware of our new policy over the coming weeks, and work together to make transit a comfortable environment for staff and customers.
This was covered a while back. BC Transit decided to make it mandatory (well, sort of mandatory), to wear masks to ensure rider comfort. It was based on feedback from riders — specifically — Karens, who felt it was their job to tell others how to live. Same theme with the RCMP.
4. RCMP Clean Shaven Directive, March 19
N95 mask and facial hair
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global issue, and the RCMP is a vital safety service for Canadians. In the interest of your health and safety, we are suspending the facial hair provisions of our Uniform and Dress Manual. All front-line regular members must report to work clean-shaven (or with moustaches of appropriate length) unless subject to a specific approved exemption. This is to ensure that the N95 respiratory mask is able to properly protect you in the event that it is needed on short notice.
If you require an exemption on religious or health grounds, you must speak with your manager.
As outlined in our Occupational Health Advisory on COVID-19, you must ensure your respirator is sealed correctly. Any break in that seal can put you at risk, and one of the most common causes of a breached seal is facial hair.
On March 19, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki issued a directive that all officers were to remain clean shaven, given that masks don’t seal properly if there is bulky facial hair. This makes a great deal of sense, as beards render them useless.
5. RCMP: Don’t Be Afraid Of This, March 26
Depending on the situation that our police officers are attending, they may wear protective equipment including a mask and goggles, similar to what is shown below.
We know that this may appear alarming, but please understand that this measure is taken in order to ensure our officers safety. For those who witness our police officers responding to calls for service wearing this protective equipment, all our officers are doing is limiting any potential exposure they may have to COVID-19. It does not mean the call for service was related to COVID-19 or that anyone has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
In order to keep the City of Burnaby safe, we need to keep our frontline officers healthy, says Corporal Mike Kalanj. This is simply an extra precaution we’re taking in order to provide the citizens of Burnaby the best police service possible.”
In March 2020, the RCMP announced that it may be responding to certain calls while wearing respirators. This was to be for the safety of the officers involved. What, no tiny piece of cloth as a show of solidarity?
6. RCMP Enforcing Quarantine Act, April 9
While everyone’s efforts can make a difference in this critical period, still more is needed. Where sound information and common sense fail, law enforcement must step in to protect those around them. In addition to its ongoing operations, the RCMP assists in enforcing mandatory isolation orders under the Federal Quarantine Act in communities where it is the police of jurisdiction.
The RCMP admits that a part of its job is enforcing isolation orders under the Quarantine Act. But what the RCMP is really enforcing are the IHR (International Health Regulations) from the World Health Organization.
7. RCMP Wearing Masks “As A Courtesy”, Aug 10
The RCMP is following public health advice by providing front-line employees with non-medical masks. Front-line police officers can use these masks while on duty in situations where personal protective equipment (PPE) is not required but where physical distancing may be difficult or unpredictable.
RCMP Commanding Officers will determine their requirements based on the direction of their local health authority and will distribute masks accordingly.
Wearing non-medical masks as a courtesy to your fellow community members is becoming more common. In an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19, the RCMP is taking these additional steps so that public can feel comfortable in engaging with police officers in their community.
Some people may be uncomfortable with a police officer approaching them with a mask on and we want to make sure that the people in the communities we serve know they can ask to see police identification, if it is safe to do so.
These measures aren’t about making the public more safe. Instead, it is about making people “feel” safe and comfortable. It’s about the appearance of doing something.
8. Masks Are Just For Show: Dhillon
Retired officer wants resolution
Retired RCMP Insp. Baltej Singh Dhillon, who served nearly 30 years and became the first RCMP officer to wear a turban, said he disagrees with the force’s “blanket policy” because it discriminates against one group of police officers.
He said calls to police are often assessed for risk so officers who wouldn’t be able to meet the standard for a fitted respiratory masks could go to a different call and still serve on the front line.
“Clearly, the PPE is for that time where a police officer feels that he or she is in a higher-risk situation where they may be exposed to COVID-19,” said Dhillon. “Because I think you can generally see that RCMP officers are currently working in our communities, not wearing masks the moment they leave the detachment.”
In an interesting bit of disclosure, a retired RCMP Inspector admits the masks are entirely for show. He claims that officers routinely take the mask off as soon as they leave the detachment.
9. Trudeau Cucks: Diversity Tops Safety
In what should surprise no one, Trudeau, or at least his clone, has declared that it’s a human rights violation to make ethnic groups comply with safety regulations.
However, considering this “pandemic” is a hoax to begin with, it may be an instance of two wrongs making a right.
10. Masks Are About Submission, Not Safety
Not sure who actually created these, but the NPC comics here illustrate a valid point. If masks work, why should people care if others refuse to wear one? It’s almost as if there was another agenda at play.
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.
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.
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.
UN Global Pulse promotes human rights-based AI innovation through the development of standards and guidelines to ensure a safe and equitable digital future.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Google has been officially registered to lobby the Federal Government since 2008. But don’t worry, it’s not like it will lead to major laws getting changed, or anything like that. Canuck Law is a serious site, and does not tolerate conspiracy theories.
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, and Facebook lobbying.
Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government if they install energy efficient or “smart” thermostats, and potential rebates. Presumably, these rebates would be financed by tax dollars or additional debt.
4. Google Lobbying On Many Subjects
Subject Matter Details Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Copyright Act, in respect of amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability.
-Copyright Act, in respect of reforms to the Copyright Board of Canada
-Income Tax Act, in respect of a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium sized businesses.
-Income Tax Act, specifically expanding section 19 to cover digital advertising.
. Policies or Program
–Broadcasting policy, specifically related to governing online content.
–COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically potential collaboration between the Government of Canada and Google on remote work practices, chatbots, community mobility reports, and network infrastructure.
-Consideration of the creation of a Government digital service, a central office to coordinate digital transformation of the Government of Canada
-Government of Canada consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World
–Immigration and visa policies, specifically policies that will promote and maintain a highly-skilled workforce.
-Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the adoption of technology by small and medium-sized enterprises.
-Intellectual Property Strategy, as it relates to intangible assets.
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Internet policy, specifically as it relates to cyber-security and national security.
-Internet policy, specifically the implementation of policy affecting the governance of the internet.
-Policies that would encourage growth of The Toronto-Waterloo Region Corridor, an 100-km stretch that is the second largest technology cluster in North America and is a global centre of talent, growth, innovation and discovery
-Procurement policy, specifically policy related to the provision of technology services by the Government of Canada.
-Providing feedback to a Canada Revenue Agency employee on draft government communications training program
-Public service polices to create greater digital skills
-Public service policies to encourage more open government
-Taxation policy, specifically proposed changes to the taxation of technology companies.
–Technological developments related to artificial intelligence.
-Technology policy, specifically promoting the development of technological infrastructure through the Smart Cities Challenge.
. Policies or Program, Regulation
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.
These are the things that Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government in order to implement.
It would be nice to have more information on what “network infrastructure” actually meant, but most people can probably guess what it is.
5. Google Lobbying Canadian Politicians
Former Facebook lobbyist, and current CPC leader, Erin O’Toole, was lobbied twice in 2018 by Google.
This is hardly an exhaustive list. Members of all parties have been lobbied for years by Google. There are some 300 communications reports listed in the Lobbying Registry.
6. WHO Partners With Social Media
WHO is working with manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment to ensure a reliable supply of the tools health workers need to do their job safely and effectively.
But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.
Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.
That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.
We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm, without fanning the flames of hysteria.
The World Health Organization openly admits to partnering with social media companies to “combat misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. It was mid-February that this Munich Conference happened. On March 31, the Rakuten Viber app was launched by WHO, and on April 15, a Facebook app was set.
Misinformation, of course, is simply anything that conflicts with the ever-shifting official narrative.
7. Google Supports Free Speech On YouTube
Google demonstrates its commitment to free speech, by hiring 10,000 people to scrub videos from YouTube (which Google owns). Nothing to worry about, as only hateful and extremist content will be erased.
8. Nothing To See Here, People
Despite the vast array of subjects which Google is lobbying the Federal Government on, there is no need to be concerned. There is nothing malevolent about it. After all, Google would never lie or mislead.
In fact, social media companies are following the lead of the World Health Organization to ensure that only the official sources of information get released to the public.
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.
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.
(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)
Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it’s a human right for foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship, even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would “correct” it anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.
Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn’t make you a Canadian, except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don’t even deserve that.
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”.
2. Galati Defending Terrorists’ “Rights”
CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats. CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr. CLICK HERE, for Galati defending citizenship for terrorists.
 In my view, the real issue is whether the designated judge in a s. 40.1 hearing has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought. Section 40.1(4)(d) states that the designated judge shall “determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and the information available to the Chief justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate”. In Re Baroud, Denault, J., found that the role of this court is neither to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence. Rather, the designated judge must determine, based on the evidence presented to him or her, whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable.
 Does the assessment of reasonableness, pursuant to s. 40.1(4)(d), include as assessment of whether upholding the certificate would breach the applicant’s constitutional rights? I do not find that it does. In my view, reasonableness and constitutionality are distinct issues. Reasonableness involves an evaluation of the evidence to determine if it supports the Ministers’ decision; constitutionality is a more in-depth assessment of the applicant’s constitutional rights. In my view, a plain reading of s. 40.1(4)(d) gives the designated judge jurisdiction only to consider the reasonableness of the certificate. If Parliament had intended the designated judge to consider the validity of the certificate, including its constitutionality, the section could have been so drafted.
 My decision that the designated judge does not have jurisdiction to consider Charter matters is further supported by the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the designated judge. Section 40.1(6) states:
“A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court”.
By expressly prohibiting further appeal or review, Parliament reinforced the notion that proceedings under s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act are intended only to consider whether the Ministers’ decision to issue the certificate is reasonable on the basis of the available evidence.
 Although I initially had doubts regarding Cullen J.’s conclusion, I am now satisfied that his conclusion is the correct one. I find support for Cullen J.’s conclusion in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1998), 229 N.R. 240. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a judge designated under subsections 40.1(8) and (9) of the Act had jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues that arose from an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection 40.1(9) of the Act.
This appeal concerned the constitutionality of the security certificates issued by the government. The limit scope of the appeals was over whether the decisions handed down were reasonable or not.
4. Bringing Back The Khadrs (2002 to ….)
Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn’t because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged death threats. One of his clients was Abdurahman Khadr, brother of Omar Khadr.
Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from taxpayers, due to “alleged” abuses and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As to the first part of the test, the reference to a period of 120 days in subsection 84(2) reflects Parliament’s intent that once a certificate has been determined to be reasonable, the person named in the certificate should be removed expeditiously. In the present case, Mahjoub has been detained for slightly over three years and it has been 21 months since the certificate was upheld. However, by requiring as one of the criteria for release that the Court consider whether removal will or will not take place within a reasonable time, Parliament has contemplated that in some circumstances, removal will not have occurred within 120 days, but the period of detention may still be a reasonable period. Otherwise, release after 120 days would be automatic, absent considerations of national security or the safety of persons. What in any particular case will be reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. Any uncertainty about when Mahjoub may be removed resulted from two significant circumstances: (i) Court proceedings which he has initiated or will initiate; and (ii) concerns as to whether Mahjoub faces a risk of torture or death if he is removed to Egypt. With respect to the first circumstance, while it was Mahjoub’s right to exhaust all avenues of legal recourse, the time required for those challenges could not be relied upon for the purpose of arguing that he will not be removed within a reasonable time. As to the second circumstance, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in Suresh that, absent extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by section 7 of the Charter. Thus, generally, as a matter of law, the Minister should decline to deport Convention refugees where there is a substantial risk of torture.
The position of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), as stated in the summary, is that it believes that Mr. Mahjoub is a high-ranking member of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist organization, the Vanguards of Conquest, a radical wing of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Al Jihad. According to CSIS, Al Jihad is one of the groups which split from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970’s to form a more extremist and militant organization. Al Jihad, according to CSIS, advocates the use of violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.
The summary provided to Mr. Mahjoub set out, to the extent consistent with national security and the safety of persons, CSIS’s grounds for believing that Mr. Mahjoub will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of the Gov ernment of Egypt, and that he is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe was and is engaged in terrorism, and which will engage in subversion by force against the Government of Egypt. The summary also set out the Service’s grounds to believe that Mr. Mahjoub had engaged in terrorism.
An open hearing was held before Mr. Justice Nadon from February 26, 2001 to March 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing to Mr. Mahjoub a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to the certificate. Submissions were made by counsel to Mr. Justice Nadon on May 8, 2001. On October 5, 2001 [2001 FCT 1095 (CanLII),  4 F.C. 644 (T.D.)], Mr. Justice Nadon determined that, on the basis of the evidence and information available to him, the certificate filed by the Ministers is reasonable.
On March 25, 2002 [ I.Adj.D.D. No. 5 (QL)], the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Mahjoub to be inadmissible, based on the security certificate. A deportation order was therefore issued.
With respect to membership in the Vanguards of Conquest and/or Al Jihad, Mr. Justice Nadon found that:
1. Mr. Mahjoub perjured himself when he denied knowing Mr. Marzouk.
2. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to his connection with Mr. Al Duri.
3. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful with respect to the use of his alias “Mahmoud Shaker” to CSIS agents.
4. Mr. Mahjoub was not truthful regarding his true activities while he worked in the Sudan for Osama bin Laden.
5. Mr. Mahjoub was initially untruthful when he was interviewed by CSIS and he denied knowing Mr. Ahmad Said Khadr.
In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn’t taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when it’s pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay in Canada.
 The applicants submit that s. 83.01 offences are “akin, of the same class and indistinguishable from offences included in s. 469 of the Criminal Code, and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. They argue that on the allegations as disclosed to date, “some of the allegations cited constitute, or may constitute, treason and/or intimidating Parliament or attempts thereunder”. Further, the applicants submit the nature and content of terrorism charges are “either subsets or specific instances of s. 469 offences or indistinguishably akin to them”.
 The fact that some of the offences under s. 83.01 involve elements of other offences does not assist the applicants. For example, another count of the information charges two accused with importing a firearm and prohibited ammunition contrary to s. 103 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code. Doing so does not turn those offences into s. 469 offences. Section 103 is not covered by s. 469.
 The applicants further submit that their s. 15 Charter rights are impacted by this constitutional omission. Mr. Galati argues that having these offences “against the Canadian state tried by provincially appointed “lower magistrates” infringes sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as infringing the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1982 in placing offences against the Canadian state before provincially appointed “lower magistrates and justices”. Finally, they submit that s. 469 “offers certain procedural and judicial benefits and protections for the accused” which mitigates in favour of having “the highest judicial scrutiny, and review by exclusive jurisdiction at first instance”. In regard to the contention that the cases are being “tried” in the Ontario Court of Justice, the issue on this application is the forum of the bail hearings.
In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 — terrorism — offences), to have the court view them in the same manner as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus it would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduct it. Galati admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his client to get bail.
(8) The portion of subsection 3(3) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada
(a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;
(a.1) if the person was born before January 1, 1947 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(o) or (q), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; (a.2) if the person was born before April 1, 1949 and, on that day, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(p) or (r), or both of the person’s parents were citizens under either of those paragraphs; or
This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if citizenship elsewhere was an option.
 The applicants seek to set aside the decision of His Excellency The Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada on June 19, 2014 to grant royal assent to Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, SC 2014, c 22 (Strengthening Citizenship Act).
 Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act amends the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (Citizenship Act). The amendments allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke the citizenship of natural-born and naturalized Canadian citizens where a citizen has a conviction relating to national security or terrorism. These convictions include treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (subsection 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act); a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code (subsection 10(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act) and certain offences under the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 and the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. Where the citizen holds, or could have a right to dual nationality, the Strengthening Citizenship Act provides for the revocation of citizenship and designation of that individual as a foreign national, which may lead to deportation from Canada.
 Given these principles, it is clear that Parliament must enjoy exclusive and unqualified legislative competence over citizenship, subject only to constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 The application for judicial review is dismissed. The matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, the decision to grant royal assent, is a legislative act and not justiciable. The respondents are not federal boards exercising a power or jurisdiction conferred under an act of Parliament. In any event, the substantive argument with respect to constitutionality of the Strengthening Citizenship Act fails. Section 8 of the Strengthening Citizenship Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed, with costs. If parties cannot agree on the amount of costs, submissions of no more than five pages in length may be made within 10 days from the date of this decision.
Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it’s absurd beyond belief that foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should have people fighting for their rights.
9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)
In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.
10. Rights Of Canadians Don’t Matter
Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are undermined under the pretense of “rights” for people who enter Canada with the intention of doing harm.
Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate it.
Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office — because their loyalty will always be divided.
Various central banks around the world — including the Bank of Canada — have fully embraced the climate change scam. They promote “green finance” as a way to enact larger social change.
1. More On International Banking Cartel
CLICK HERE, for #1: restoring 1934 Bank of Canada Act. CLICK HERE, for #2: Rocco Galati, COMER court case, appeals. CLICK HERE, for #3: U.S. Federal Reserve, End The Fed. CLICK HERE, for #4: questions to CDN Finance Department. CLICK HERE, for #5: globalist approved talking points. CLICK HERE, for #6: response from the Bank of Canada. CLICK HERE, for #7: Carney, UN Climate Finance, CCX. CLICK HERE, for #8: controlled opposition political parties. CLICK HERE, for #9: BIS Immunities Act, promote climate hoax.
This is a continuation of the unholy marriage between the banking cartel and the climate cartel. Mark Carney, the former Bank of Canada Head, is now running UN Climate Finance (Part 7). The Bank for International Settlements is promoting the climate hoax (Part 9). Now we see that the Bank of Canada is also on board with this. Not only the BoC, but other central banks are as well.
The pandemic, central banks and climate change
• COVID-19 is a shock and an opportunity
• Pivot to a greener, smarter economy?
• Focus here on climate-related issues
• Our contributions to scenario analysis
• To start: how we view climate change risk
For those who are unfamiliar, the GREAT RESET is a plan hatched a long time ago, which involved using this “pandemic” as an excuse to bring about larger social change. Check out the previous piece on the World Economic Forum.
5. BoC Calls Climate Change A “Vulnerability”
Climate change creates important physical risks both in Canada and globally. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average world temperature in 2017 was around 1°C higher than pre-industrial levels and is projected to rise by 0.2°C per decade. One consequence is an increase in extreme weather events such as flooding, hurricanes and severe droughts. Insured damage to property and infrastructure in Canada averaged about $1.7 billion per year from 2008 to 2017, up from $200 million per year from 1983 to 1992. Canada is particularly affected—it is estimated to be warming significantly faster than the rest of the world.27
The move to a low-carbon economy involves complex structural adjustments, creating new opportunities as well as transition risk. Investor and consumer preferences are shifting toward lower-carbon sources and production processes, suggesting that the move to a low-carbon economy is underway. Transition costs will be felt most in carbon-intensive sectors, such as the oil and gas sector. If some fossil fuel reserves remain unexploited, assets in this sector may become stranded, losing much of their value. At the same time, other sectors such as green technology and alternative energy will likely benefit.
Both physical and transition risks are likely to have broad impacts on the economy. Moving labour and capital toward less carbon-intensive sectors is costly and takes time. Global trade patterns may also shift as production costs and the value of resources change. The necessary adjustments are complex and pervasive and might lead to increased risk for the financial system. In addition to insurance companies, many other parts of the financial system are exposed to risks from climate change. Banks have loans to carbon-intensive sectors as well as to connected sectors—for example, those upstream or downstream in supply chains. Asset managers hold carbon-intensive assets in and outside Canada. The Government of Canada’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is studying these issues.
(From part 5), the Bank of Canada has written off the oil & gas sector, and others, in favour of “transitioning to a low carbon economy”. It would be nice for those people in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan to have been made aware of this. It’s not like their communities will be gutted.
6. BoC & “Greening Financial System”
In response, central banks are stepping up efforts to assess climate-related risks. The current suite of central bank economic models, however, do not incorporate climate-change effects. Uncertainty over future developments related to climate change also makes assessing these risks challenging. These developments include policy developments, technological developments and changes in the natural environment.
Some central banks and private financial institutions are developing tools to carry out climate-related scenario analysis. Scenario analysis examines different plausible future states of the world. It forecasts a set of situations that could happen rather than predicts what will happen. It can help users evaluate a range of hypothetical outcomes based on different assumptions of what may occur. Scenario analysis is particularly useful for climate change, where the evolution of key variables is uncertain. To be the most useful, these scenarios should be extreme yet plausible. This will give a sense of the full range of possible risks.
Rather than focusing on monetary policy, which is its mandate, the Bank of Canada has decided to wade into the climate change agenda. The BoC alleges that climate change is directly tied to the financial health of the country.
7. Initiative Launched December 2017
The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), was launched on December 12, 2017. It started off with 8 central banks, but has grown exponentially since. Many more, including the Bank of Canada, are now part of this group.
Joint statement by the Founding Members of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System
Financing the transition to a green and low carbon economy consistent with the ‘well below 2°celsius’ goal set out in the Paris agreement and promoting environmental sustainable growth are among the major challenges of our time. In the process of responding to environmental and climate challenges, there are both opportunities and vulnerabilities for financial institutions and the financial system as a whole.
Post Paris, official sector and private-led initiatives have accelerated the awareness of climate related financial risks and the scaling up of green financing. The G20 Green Finance Study Group and the FSB Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures also recommended steps towards encouraging financial institutions to conduct environmental risk analysis and to improve environment- and climate-related information disclosure. We are very pleased to announce today that eight central banks and supervisors decided to collectively commit to establish a Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System. The Network will help to strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.
This group was started by the central banks of 8 countries. It has since grown to encompass many more. People should be skeptical that organizations involved in the monetary system are getting involved in the climate change industry.
9. NGFS Scaling Up “Green Finance”
This section provides an overview of the workstream’s mandate.
The workstream on scaling up green finance is structured around 3 main topics:
1) Promoting the adoption of sustainable and responsible principles in central banks’ investment approaches
2) Understanding and monitoring the market dynamics of green finance
3) Providing a joint central banks’ view on the various challenges climate change raises for the conduct of monetary policy
10. Remember Mark Carney?
Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada, and later headed the Bank of England. Anyway, this man is now in charge of “UN Climate Finance”, and openly threatens to bankrupt companies who don’t play ball with the climate change scam. It used to be that gangsters would burn down your business if you didn’t pay. Now, they just pass laws to make it impossible to operate.
You know all that hype about the Bank of Canada looking to push some form of digital currency to replace money? Well yes, they are actually looking into it.
12. Should Banks Push Climate Agenda?
Banks, like any institution, should stick to their assigned role and not meddle elsewhere. Why stray so far into unrelated areas? It’s because they have an agenda, and are just using the financial sector as a means and excuse of implementing that agenda.