Category: Globalism

Posted on

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

You probably haven’t heard any concrete or specific updates from Notice Of Application concerning the lawsuit that was filed in April 2021. The most likely reason is that nothing has happened in the 15 months since the initial Notice of Application.

Why continue to follow up? A few reasons. First, knowing the truth about these publicly funded cases is important. After all, people have donated. Second, so that false hope isn’t attached to cases that will never go anywhere. Third, it’s not just the obvious people whose activities need to be monitored.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched.

Recently, a follow-up article showed that Vaccine Choice Canada’s lawsuits (both of them) had been dormant since 2020.

As for some detailed critiques of various challenges, see here and here for some of the more obvious flaws and defects. How does this happen, unless intentionally?

Another Notice Of Application was filed in April 2021, concerning masks on students in Ontario schools. The 2 documents are virtually identical, suggesting a cut-and-paste creation for the second. And likewise, there’s no activity going on, nor anything in the foreseeable future.

Again, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. No movement at all since Statement of Claim filed.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

There had been claims floating around starting in 2021 about affidavits of evidence that totaled in the thousands of pages. Problem is: if they actually exist, they haven’t been filed anywhere. One possible explanation is that this was deliberate deception to soothe over the concerns of donors with the lack of record activity.

Apparently a new suit has been filed in Federal Court. (Archive is here). While not written well, it’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other Claims. It’s only been a month, so too soon to determine where that goes. However, if recent history is any indication, it will likely sit for months or years with no activity.

To readers who have donated to these “lawsuits”: you may want to seriously consider demanding a refund. It seems very unlikely that this is what you thought was really going on.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?lcid=1033&id=104001&t=637936622752983920
(3) https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1979%20International%20Convention%20against%20the%20Taking%20of%20Hostages.pdf

Posted on

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

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.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

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

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

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.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

(1A) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(1B) WHO Constitution Full Document MARKED
(2) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(4) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730

Posted on

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

  • African Circular Economy Alliance
  • Circular Economy Leadership Canada
  • City of Toronto
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
  • European Union
  • Finnish Government
  • International Chamber of Commerce
  • Government of Canada
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

RECIPIENT DATE DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc Jul 28, 2021 $175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc Jan 8, 2021 $2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph Mar 13, 2020 $10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel Feb 6, 2020 $2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada Mar 31, 2021 $390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region Mar 18, 2020 $553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc. Dec 5, 2021 $30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization Mar 24, 2022 $98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics Oct 27, 2021 $49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne Mar 15, 2022 $234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals Jul 28, 2021 $299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc. Feb 21, 2019 $299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute Oct 1, 2021 $1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc Mar 18, 2020 $175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Feb 1, 2019 $170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Sep 16, 2021 $460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc. Jan 25, 2021 $143,000.00
University Of British Columbia Mar 18, 2022 $1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 23, 2014 $1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Sep 29, 2015 $6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 14, 2015 $10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 3, 2018 $52,925.00
World Economic Forum Apr 25, 2019 $999,580.00
World Economic Forum Jan 17, 2020 $500,000.00
World Economic Forum Mar 16, 2020 $5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

Posted on

Canadian Parliament To Resume Study On Facial Recognition Use After Summer Break

The Canadian Parliament is taking a break for the summer on studying the issue of facial recognition in society. Considering the vast privacy implications, this isn’t a topic to be decided lightly.

There have been 8 briefs submitted for public viewing, and some 33 witnesses have been scheduled to appear before the House of Commons. There has been overlap in the concerns, particularly around what sort of safeguards would be in place to prevent misuse and abuse of this technology.

Questions have also been asked about how reliable this type of equipment is, and can its use inadvertently lead to large numbers of false positives. This seems particularly true given how many people are still wearing masks. Beyond that, how broadly could this be used? Would the scope be narrow and focused, or turned onto society more broadly?

Given the increasing use of AI, or artificial intelligence, it seems that much of this would be done automatically, with little to no personal oversight. That again raises the potential for more errors.

And really, many just don’t want such systems around.

Hearings went from March through June 2022. However, with Parliament recessed for the summer, the issue is on hold for the time being.

The timing is also bad for another reason. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada had been tracking cell phone data from users without their knowledge or consent. See their recommendations. This doesn’t exactly contribute to gaining the public’s trust.

Clearly, we will have to see where things go this these issues. However, there is a significant portion of the population which is unhappy with ever encroaching measures.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11566271
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Brief/BR11882158/br-external/MaslejNestor-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Brief/BR11713948/br-external/CanadianHumanRightsCommission-e.pdf
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11471238
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/privacy-phac-snooping-on-cell-phone-records/
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ETHI/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11471238
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/ETHI/report-4/
(8) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/ETHI/Reports/RP11736929/ethirp04/ethirp04-e.pdf

Posted on

What Danielle Smith Isn’t Telling Her Supporters

Today’s topic concerns Danielle Smith, running to become Premier of Alberta. She used to be the head of the Wildrose Party in that Province.

Why go after someone who claims to be fighting for freedom, at least in Alberta? Because there are critical topics that are going unsaid.

In fairness, ideas like setting up a Provincial police force (like the O.P.P.), and doing local tax collection are interesting.

While Smith’s campaign seems to be starting well, there are plenty of red flags. Specifically, there are concerns that she doesn’t appear to be addressing. Her rise also seems controlled and inorganic, much like that of Poilievre.

Of course, if these things were properly addressed, than an apology is warranted. But they don’t seem to have been.

For starters, Smith (and all Western “conservatives”) claim to want to rebuild the oil & gas sector. However, they ignore the fact that Agendas 21 and 2030 make it clear these industries are to be killed off. These were signed by Mulroney and Harper respectively.

Smith is running for the leadership of the United Conservative Party, which Jason Kenney is leaving. In launching her campaign, she goes on about how Alberta needs to be protected from Trudeau. Of course, this applies to Ottawa more generally.

What makes this ring hollow is that the UCP received the wage subsidy, CEWS, for at least a portion of the last 2 years. It’s pretty hard to be against the Trudeau regime when his programs are paying your organization’s bills.

While Jason Kenney claimed to be resisting tyranny in Ottawa, his party was sucking at the teet of Federal bailout programs.

It’s a great talking point to be challenging Trudeau on “vaccinations” for certain things, but it completely glosses over the fact that Kenney brought in a Provincial system in late 2021, despite repeatedly promising not to. Smith is also running to head the party that was too spineless to stop Kenney, Hinshaw and Shandro.

Of course, the UCP is hardly alone in being bought off. The Alberta Liberals also got the subsidies, as did the Federal Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Watch the original video, or the remake for a look at the rot in our system.

There’s also no mention about the rampant pharma lobbying trying to influence policies in Alberta. Yes, it happens everywhere, but it’s not exactly a secret.

If Smith was serious about freedom and sovereignty for Alberta, she could always have thrown Kenney under the bus for his World Economic Forum connection. Either she doesn’t know about it, or just chose not to do so.

For obvious reasons, anyone tied to that organization can never be trusted to put their constituents first.

YEAR END TOTAL REVENUE NON-GOV’T PERCENTAGE
March 2017 $14,325,881,000 $922,364,000 6.54%
March 2018 $13,780,984,000 0 0%
March 2019 $15,134,433,000 $948,317,000 6.27%
March 2020 $15,335,736,000 $971,471,000 6.33%
March 2021 $16,489,501,000 $767,768,000 4.66%

Alberta Health Services is a registered charity, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although 2017/2018 seems to be an anomaly, A.H.S. takes close to $1 billion/year from non-Governmental sources. It would be nice to know who these are.

Not only are private organizations allowed to donate, and potentially influence policy, taxpayers are forced to subsidize those donations. Tax credits amount to approximately 40% – 50% of the contributions.

Worth mentioning: this site has asked the C.R.A. several times for donor information. However, those requests were refused, citing privacy protections.

Pretty hard to do a proper job of criticizing A.H.S. while leaving this out.

In order for Alberta to have control over its affairs, it’s important to know what international agreements various Federal Governments have signed over the years. Smith doesn’t appear to have addressed any of this. As such, she’s in no position to offer such things, even if she were Premier.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

In order to be part of the World Health Organization, it means adopting their Constitution, and ceding a large amount of sovereignty to an international body. No prominent politicians in Canada of any stripe have addressed this point. Are they all controlled?

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

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.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

A serious candidate would vow to scrap the Alberta Public Health Act, or at least gut it. This legislation (and all Provinces have a similar version) are derived from the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself came from WHO’s International Health Regulations.

It makes no sense to propose an Alberta Sovereignty Act, while leaving intact the legislation which signs away the Province’s control in the first place.

On November 30, 2020, Smith interviewed Kenney for the show she had at the time. The clip starts at about 28:30 in the full recording. Smith made it pretty clear she’s quite able to do research.

She also brought up the issue of 90% false positives for PCR testing (notwithstanding the fact that no virus exists). Even 18 months ago, she clearly knew that this “pandemic” was a scam. But that person seems to have vanished.

Much like Ron DeSantis of Florida, Smith will scream about bodily autonomy, all while ignoring or downplaying the obvious psy-op over the last few years. This was planned and deliberate, not just some collective incompetence.

A cynic would view all of this as a candidate dropped in to placate the masses. A more charitable interpretation would be a total lack of understanding of what’s going on.

Now, could Smith be a decent Premier? Maybe. However, she leaves out so much that it’s hard to see her as anything but another fake freedom fighter.

(1) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith
(2) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1544454483388014593/
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/WooZ4LCmdDs5/
(5) https://www.weforum.org/people/jason-t-kenney
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=alberta+health+services&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=124072513RR0010&dsrdPg=1
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(13) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(14) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(15) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill-c-12-phac-act/
(17) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(18) https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/1065515287297927