Category: Globalism

Posted on

Bill C-22: Scrapping Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences For Certain Gun Crimes

The other day, Bill C-21 was introduced, which would bring “red-flag” laws into Canada, and make it easier to seize guns. Now, we have Bill C-22, which reduces the penalties in the Criminal Code for crimes committed with guns. Keep in mind, last May we had an Order In Council which immediately banned some 1,500 guns.

Who gets targeted? Legal gun owners.
Who gets a break? Criminals who use guns.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. JT Cut Penalties For Terrorists/Pedos

In 2018, Bill C-75 was addressed. It cut the penalties for terrorism offences. The media didn’t seem to cover that it also lowered the penalties for child sex offences as well. Tt has also been proposed to decriminalize non-disclosure of HIV status for sexual partners. Now, we get to Bill C-22, scrapping mandatory minimum sentences for people committing crimes with guns.

3. Section 85: Firearm Use Offences

85 (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,
.
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.

Marginal note: Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
.
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
(c) [Repealed, 2008, c. 6, s. 3]

Bill C-22 would change 85(3) to this:
“Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

No more mandatory minimum prison sentences for the above offences. While a Judge would “likely” still impose one, it’s not required if this Bill passes as is.

4. Section 92: Unauthorized Possession

Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
.
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Marginal note: Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

Bill C-22 would change 92(3) to this:
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
No more minimum sentences.

5. Section 95: More Illegal Possession

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
.
95 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 95(2)(a) to this:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
Once again, mandatory minimum sentences would disappear.

6. Section 96: Firearms Used In Crime

Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
.
96 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition that the person knows was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence or by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bill C-22 would change 96(2)(a) to:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or”
No more mandatory minimum jail sentences.

7. Section 99: Trafficking Guns/Weapons

Weapons trafficking
.
99 (1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or
(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of
.
a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

Marginal note:Punishment — firearm
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) when the object in question is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.

Marginal note: Punishment — other cases
.
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

Bill C-22 would change 99(3) to this:
“In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”

Section 100(3), weapons trafficking, would also be changed such that the required minimum jail sentence would be removed. The Court could still issue them though, but would have discretion.

8. Section 244: Discharging A Firearm W/Intent

Discharging firearm with intent
.
244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.

Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Subsequent offences
.
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
(a) an offence under this section;
(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244.2; or
(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1, 344 or 346 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.
.
However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

If passed, 244(2)(b) and 244(3)(b) will now each read:
“in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”

Section 344(1)(a.1) and 346(1)(1.a) are also repealed, which would have called for 4 year minimum sentences in some robbery cases and extortion where firearms were not used.

It’s not enough that legal gun owners can be targeted under proposed red flag laws, or that their guns can be outlawed. Now, the Government sees fit to reduce the penalties for those committing crimes with guns.

This isn’t stupidity or ignorance.
It’s war against the Canadian public.

Posted on

Ottawa Using “Pandemic Bucks” To Help Companies Grow And Advertise Their Products

We have already covered media outlets in Canada being heavily subsidized by the Canadian Government — which of course, means the public. It explains the total lack of independent media.

Moving on, it seems that the NRC is heavily involved in propping up other companies, and helping them advertise. This happens even as mandated shutdowns have flattened other companies. Should we be picking winners and losers here?

Important Disclaimer With This Piece

It doesn’t appear that the bulk of the grants are directed to help companies push the “pandemic” narrative. That being said, it’s fair to assume that these businesses will be “mindful” of where their money is coming from. So, it’s unlikely that they will be critical of it in any meaningful way. The following comes from an online search of Government handouts on advertising, with some obviously irrelevant ones omitted.

It’s also interesting that the National Research Council of Canada is financing the majority of them. More on that later.

Grants To Companies For R&D, Advertising

COMPANY DATE AMOUNT
2047752 Alberta Inc. Apr. 20, 2020 $53,362
10319287 CANADA INC Aug. 17, 2020 $21,000
Abacus Growth Industry Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $38,250
Akuspike Products Inc. Sep. 21, 2020 $33,750
Apollo Music Store Inc Jul. 7, 2020 $30,750
Baro Apparel Inc. Aug. 1, 2020 $50,100
Bonton and Company Jun. 1, 2020 $96,370
Caldera Distilling May 5, 2020 $33,750
Cambridge Elevating Inc. Aug. 12, 2020 $33,000
Caméléon Média inc. Dec. 23, 2020 $258,903
Casca Designs Inc. Jul. 14, 2020 $22,500
Créations Today is Art Day inc. Oct. 19, 2020 $18,750
CVAC Efficace Inc. May 19, 2020 $19,050
Dirt Squirrel Co. Jul. 10, 2020 $41,250
EatSleepRIDE Mobile Inc. May 11, 2020 $46,000
EQ Advertising Group Ltd. May 1, 2020 $150,000
Fab-Cut Systems Inc Jun. 16, 2020 $30,750
FOM Inc. Sep. 25, 2020 $27,750
Forestry Innovation Investment May 9, 2020 $258,500
Glacier Communications Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $30,000
Gogglesoc Apparel Limited Nov. 18, 2020 $26,250
Harbinger SCR Inc. May 30, 2020 $45,000
Hunch Manifest Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $47,787
Hydrodig Ltd Jun. 9, 2020 $30,000
Indigo Marketing Solutions Ltd. Aug. 4, 2020 $35,000
Jeffrey Ross Jewellery Ltd Oct. 22, 2020 $22,500
Kicking Horse Coffee Co. Jul. 22, 2020 $34,050
Koffee Beauty Inc. May 15, 2020 $34,200
Les Entreprises PNH inc. Nov. 17, 2020 $275,511
M32 Média inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $98,000
Market Global Commodities Exchange Jun. 1, 2020 $80,000
Netgen Corp. Apr. 29, 2020 $26,250
O’Grady Productions Inc. Sep. 16, 2020 $37,500
Pacey Medtech Ltd. Oct. 17, 2020 $26,250
PageFreezer Software Inc. May 3, 2020 $52,500
Park & Fifth Clothing Co. LTD Oct. 20, 2020 $30,000
Probuild Software Inc. Aug. 28, 2020 $18,000
Riaz Sidi Performance Marketing Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $45,000
Rock Solid Productions Inc Sep. 29, 2020 $24,750
Roomview Technologies May 8, 2020 $60,000
Rosgol-Rostech Technologies Inc. Oct. 17, 2020 $24,000
S&Y Househ Advertising Services Inc Nov. 18, 2020 $34,319
Satya Organics Inc Aug. 24, 2020 $30,000
Solutions Nubik Inc. Jun. 23, 2020 $27,000
StackAdapt Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $2,468,000
Telecom Engineering Inc Jul. 27, 2020 $21,760
Temple Lifestyle Inc. Jun. 25, 2020 $44,775
Theos Inc. May 9, 2020 $43,950
Trellis Corporation May 4, 2020 $17,000
V. Island Men’s Trauma Counselling Jun. 25, 2020 $177,005
Vertical City Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $250,000
WATTPAD CORP. Jun. 24, 2020 $54,000
Wholly Veggie Inc. Jun. 15, 2020 $37,500
Wizard Games Inc. Jul. 10, 2020 $15,000

This isn’t all of them, but does give a glance into where the Federal Government is spending your money. Or rather, where it’s spending debt for future generations.

Why Is National Research Council Funding It?

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) is Canada’s largest federal research and development organization.
.
The NRC partners with Canadian industry to take research impacts from the lab to the marketplace, where people can experience the benefits. This market-driven focus delivers innovation faster, enhances people’s lives and addresses some of the world’s most pressing problems. We are responsive, creative and uniquely placed to partner with Canadian industry, to invest in strategic R&D programming that will address critical issues for our future.

Each year our scientists, engineers and business experts work closely with thousands of Canadian firms, helping them bring new technologies to market. We have the people, expertise, services, licensing opportunities, national facilities and global networks to support Canadian businesses.

In this section, you will find more information about how the NRC is organized and governed, where we are located across Canada, and links to our corporate publications and financial statements.

The majority, (though not all), of these came from NRC.

The NRC’s mandate is to “promote scientific or industrial research”. In short, it’s a public-private partnership to bring to products onto the market. Even as Federal and Provincial Governments crash economies across Canada, public money is used to make new companies competitive. This isn’t simply about money handed out to prop up desperate enterprises. In the meantime, thousands of businesses have gone under, because of the “arbitrary” rules that have been imposed.

The Great Reset is here, and Governments everywhere have their thumbs on the scales.

Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
Aberdeen Publishin (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

2. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

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

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

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

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access order
.
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

3. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Posted on

Even More Subsidies & “Pandemic Bucks”, For Propping Up Canadian Media

On April 1, 2020, the Canada Media Fund Corporation received a $222,896,077 grant from the Canadian Government. Of this, $88,750,000 was specified as Covid relief. This is just one of the many grants Canadian media companies have been getting in recent years.

SEARCH FOR MEDIA GRANTS

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

NAME TIME AMOUNT
***9320-6712 Québec inc. Oct. 8, 2020 $36,026
***Canadian Association Of Broadcasters Apr. 1, 2020 $22,500,000
***Canadian Association Of Community Television Users, Stations Apr. 1, 2020 $1,000,000
***Canadian Association Of Community Television Users, Stations Apr. 1, 2020 $500,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jul. 18, 2006 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Nov. 21, 2007 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 20, 2008 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Jun. 8, 2009 $119,950,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2010 $134,146,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Mar. 25, 2011 $34,596,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Aug. 12, 2011 $99,550,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 8, 2012 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 2, 2013 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 5, 2014 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 22, 2015 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation May 13, 2016 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2017 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 $134,146,077
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $16,960,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $157,793,710
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $222,896,077
***Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 $22,000,000
Canada Media Fund Corporation Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $26,365,000
Canada News Media Association May 1, 2019 $14,400,000
***Community Radio Fund Of Canada Apr. 1, 2020 $2,000,000
***Ethor Media Ltd. Jul. 27, 2020 $413,883
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2018 – Mar. 31, 2019 $1,403,958
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $1,252,398
Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,252,398
***Maclean’s Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $313,100
***New Media Manitoba Aug. 20, 2020 $100,000
***On Screen Manitoba Incorporated Aug. 18, 2020 $75,000
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $1,132,104
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2020 $441,941
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $441,941
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $431,271
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $265,813
Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $125,359
***Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $110,485
***Reader’s Digest Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $66,453
***sMedia Ventures Aug. 5, 2020 $266,554
Telefilm Canada Jun. 8, 2007 $29,000,000
Telefilm Canada Jun. 10, 2009 $14,300,000
***YMCA Of Greater Saint John Sep. 4, 2020 $25,000

This is by no means all of the grants that have come recently. But it should give an idea about where the public’s money is going.

***Indicates it was specified as Covid-19 funding

3. Canada Financing Covid Propaganda Abroad

NAME PLACE YEAR AMOUNT
***Community Media Network Jordan 2020 $30,169
***La Voz Publica para la Verificacion del Discurso Publico (Chequeado) Argentina 2020 $28,750
***Red para la Diversidad Sexual (REPADIS) Paraguay 2020 $15,246
***Salam Afghanistan Media Organization Afghanistan 2020 $62,000

Serious question: why are we funding these programs abroad? It’s bad enough the brainwashing that goes on domestically, but this maybe even worse.

***Indicates it was specified as Covid-19 funding

4. Canadian Media Long Term Dependents

Various media in Canada, such as television, radio, newspapers have long been dependent on the Government, (or rather, taxpayers), to remain viable. The consequence is that when Ottawa or the Provinces have agendas to implement, few will be in any position to investigate them too hard. The result is almost universal media approval.

Posted on

Digital Citizen Contribution Program: “Pandemic Bucks” To Fight Misinformation

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

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

1. How Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance for research and citizen-focused activities. The Program aims to support democracy and social cohesion in Canada by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats.

The Government is handing out money to certain organizations to promote its version of responsible journalism. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The following organizations are eligible for funding:

  • a national, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, community or professional organization, society or association which has voluntarily associated itself for a not-for-profit purpose, and which has the mandate to represent its membership or community
  • a not-for-profit organization, including non-governmental or umbrella organizations, non-profit corporations, community groups, regulatory bodies or apprenticeship authorities, or associations serving the private sector
  • a university or educational institution
  • an individual researcher, acting in his or her personal capacity
  • a research institution with an established record in relevant field(s), intending to undertake work in a Canadian context
  • a for-profit Canadian and Canadian-owned institution with a record of developing and delivering programming, and performing research or related activities relevant to the goals of Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Initiative, provided that the nature and the intent of the activity is non-commercial

Now, who’s getting the money?

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

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

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

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

2. Ryerson University’s Social Media Lab

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

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

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

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

3. Concordia University’s Disinfo Research

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

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

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

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

4. Financing Your Own Brainwashing

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

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

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html#a2
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(4) https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ongoing-support-for-research-and-media-literacy-projects-as-canada-continues-to-fight-online-disinformation-816455316.html
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-46-dominic-leblanc-proposes-law-to-ban-misinformation-about-virus/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress