Category: Globalism

Posted on

Google Lobbying: Smart Thermostats; Digital Taxes; Smart Cities; 5G Infrastructure; Content Regulation

Google has been officially registered to lobby the Federal Government since 2008. But don’t worry, it’s not like it will lead to major laws getting changed, or anything like that. Canuck Law is a serious site, and does not tolerate conspiracy theories.

1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365072&regId=897489&blnk=1
(2) https://archive.is/TaD59
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=898683&blnk=1
(4) https://archive.is/2NNky
(5) Google’s Recent Communications Reports
(6) https://archive.is/v0jDY
(7) https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference
(8) https://archive.is/VlN8K
(9) https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-and-rakuten-viber-fight-covid-19-misinformation-with-interactive-chatbot
(10) https://archive.is/fWfYY
(11) https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-launches-a-chatbot-powered-facebook-messenger-to-combat-covid-19-misinformation
(12) https://archive.is/PRIHD

3. Google And Smart Thermostats

Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government if they install energy efficient or “smart” thermostats, and potential rebates. Presumably, these rebates would be financed by tax dollars or additional debt.

4. Google Lobbying On Many Subjects

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Copyright Act, in respect of amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability.
-Copyright Act, in respect of reforms to the Copyright Board of Canada
-Income Tax Act, in respect of a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium sized businesses.
-Income Tax Act, specifically expanding section 19 to cover digital advertising.
.
Policies or Program
–Broadcasting policy, specifically related to governing online content.
–COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically potential collaboration between the Government of Canada and Google on remote work practices, chatbots, community mobility reports, and network infrastructure.
-Consideration of the creation of a Government digital service, a central office to coordinate digital transformation of the Government of Canada
-Government of Canada consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World
–Immigration and visa policies, specifically policies that will promote and maintain a highly-skilled workforce.
-Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the adoption of technology by small and medium-sized enterprises.
-Intellectual Property Strategy, as it relates to intangible assets.
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Internet policy, specifically as it relates to cyber-security and national security.
-Internet policy, specifically the implementation of policy affecting the governance of the internet.
-Policies that would encourage growth of The Toronto-Waterloo Region Corridor, an 100-km stretch that is the second largest technology cluster in North America and is a global centre of talent, growth, innovation and discovery
-Procurement policy, specifically policy related to the provision of technology services by the Government of Canada.
-Providing feedback to a Canada Revenue Agency employee on draft government communications training program
-Public service polices to create greater digital skills
-Public service policies to encourage more open government
-Taxation policy, specifically proposed changes to the taxation of technology companies.
–Technological developments related to artificial intelligence.
-Technology policy, specifically promoting the development of technological infrastructure through the Smart Cities Challenge.
.
Policies or Program, Regulation
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.

These are the things that Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government in order to implement.

It would be nice to have more information on what “network infrastructure” actually meant, but most people can probably guess what it is.

5. Google Lobbying Canadian Politicians

Former Facebook lobbyist, and current CPC leader, Erin O’Toole, was lobbied twice in 2018 by Google.

This is hardly an exhaustive list. Members of all parties have been lobbied for years by Google. There are some 300 communications reports listed in the Lobbying Registry.

6. WHO Partners With Social Media

WHO is working with manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment to ensure a reliable supply of the tools health workers need to do their job safely and effectively.

But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.

Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.

That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.

We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm, without fanning the flames of hysteria.

The World Health Organization openly admits to partnering with social media companies to “combat misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. It was mid-February that this Munich Conference happened. On March 31, the Rakuten Viber app was launched by WHO, and on April 15, a Facebook app was set.

Misinformation, of course, is simply anything that conflicts with the ever-shifting official narrative.

7. Google Supports Free Speech On YouTube

Google demonstrates its commitment to free speech, by hiring 10,000 people to scrub videos from YouTube (which Google owns). Nothing to worry about, as only hateful and extremist content will be erased.

8. Nothing To See Here, People

Despite the vast array of subjects which Google is lobbying the Federal Government on, there is no need to be concerned. There is nothing malevolent about it. After all, Google would never lie or mislead.

In fact, social media companies are following the lead of the World Health Organization to ensure that only the official sources of information get released to the public.

Please move along.

Posted on

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

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

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

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

2. Important Links

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

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

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

CLICK HERE, for Zakery Blais LinkedIn page.

3. Context For This Article

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

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

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

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

5. Kevin Chan: Privy Council, OLO, Facebook

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

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

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

6. Conflict Of Interest With Privy Council

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

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

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

7. Zakery Blais Worked For AG David Lametti

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

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

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

8. Jason Clark: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

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

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

9. Chad Rogers: Crestview, GAVI, Facebook

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

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

10. Crestview Strategy & Facebook Lobbyists

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

11. Everyone Should Have A License

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

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

12. Big Tech Collusion On “Pandemic”

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

13. This Doesn’t Look Like Arms Length

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

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

Posted on

IBC #6(B): Bank Of Canada & Other Central Banks Promoting Climate Change Scam

Various central banks around the world — including the Bank of Canada — have fully embraced the climate change scam. They promote “green finance” as a way to enact larger social change.

1. BoC Fully Supports The GREAT RESET


https://twitter.com/bankofcanada/status/1296788907724623873

bank.of.canada.great.reset.agenda

The pandemic, central banks and climate change
• COVID-19 is a shock and an opportunity
• Pivot to a greener, smarter economy?
• Focus here on climate-related issues
• Our contributions to scenario analysis
• To start: how we view climate change risk

For those who are unfamiliar, the GREAT RESET is a plan hatched a long time ago, which involved using this “pandemic” as an excuse to bring about larger social change. Check out the previous piece on the World Economic Forum.

2. BoC Calls Climate Change A “Vulnerability”

Climate change creates important physical risks both in Canada and globally. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average world temperature in 2017 was around 1°C higher than pre-industrial levels and is projected to rise by 0.2°C per decade. One consequence is an increase in extreme weather events such as flooding, hurricanes and severe droughts. Insured damage to property and infrastructure in Canada averaged about $1.7 billion per year from 2008 to 2017, up from $200 million per year from 1983 to 1992. Canada is particularly affected—it is estimated to be warming significantly faster than the rest of the world.27

The move to a low-carbon economy involves complex structural adjustments, creating new opportunities as well as transition risk. Investor and consumer preferences are shifting toward lower-carbon sources and production processes, suggesting that the move to a low-carbon economy is underway. Transition costs will be felt most in carbon-intensive sectors, such as the oil and gas sector. If some fossil fuel reserves remain unexploited, assets in this sector may become stranded, losing much of their value. At the same time, other sectors such as green technology and alternative energy will likely benefit.

Both physical and transition risks are likely to have broad impacts on the economy. Moving labour and capital toward less carbon-intensive sectors is costly and takes time. Global trade patterns may also shift as production costs and the value of resources change. The necessary adjustments are complex and pervasive and might lead to increased risk for the financial system. In addition to insurance companies, many other parts of the financial system are exposed to risks from climate change. Banks have loans to carbon-intensive sectors as well as to connected sectors—for example, those upstream or downstream in supply chains. Asset managers hold carbon-intensive assets in and outside Canada. The Government of Canada’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is studying these issues.

(From part 5), the Bank of Canada has written off the oil & gas sector, and others, in favour of “transitioning to a low carbon economy”. It would be nice for those people in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan to have been made aware of this. It’s not like their communities will be gutted.

3. BoC & “Greening Financial System”

In response, central banks are stepping up efforts to assess climate-related risks. The current suite of central bank economic models, however, do not incorporate climate-change effects. Uncertainty over future developments related to climate change also makes assessing these risks challenging. These developments include policy developments, technological developments and changes in the natural environment.

Some central banks and private financial institutions are developing tools to carry out climate-related scenario analysis. Scenario analysis examines different plausible future states of the world. It forecasts a set of situations that could happen rather than predicts what will happen. It can help users evaluate a range of hypothetical outcomes based on different assumptions of what may occur. Scenario analysis is particularly useful for climate change, where the evolution of key variables is uncertain. To be the most useful, these scenarios should be extreme yet plausible. This will give a sense of the full range of possible risks.

Rather than focusing on monetary policy, which is its mandate, the Bank of Canada has decided to wade into the climate change agenda. The BoC alleges that climate change is directly tied to the financial health of the country.

4. Initiative Launched December 2017

The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), was launched on December 12, 2017. It started off with 8 central banks, but has grown exponentially since. Many more, including the Bank of Canada, are now part of this group.

5. Central Banks “Greening Financial System”

founding.members.greening.of.financial.system

Joint statement by the Founding Members of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System

Financing the transition to a green and low carbon economy consistent with the ‘well below 2°celsius’ goal set out in the Paris agreement and promoting environmental sustainable growth are among the major challenges of our time. In the process of responding to environmental and climate challenges, there are both opportunities and vulnerabilities for financial institutions and the financial system as a whole.

Post Paris, official sector and private-led initiatives have accelerated the awareness of climate related financial risks and the scaling up of green financing. The G20 Green Finance Study Group and the FSB Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures also recommended steps towards encouraging financial institutions to conduct environmental risk analysis and to improve environment- and climate-related information disclosure. We are very pleased to announce today that eight central banks and supervisors decided to collectively commit to establish a Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System. The Network will help to strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.

This group was started by the central banks of 8 countries. It has since grown to encompass many more. People should be skeptical that organizations involved in the monetary system are getting involved in the climate change industry.

6. NGFS Scaling Up “Green Finance”

This section provides an overview of the workstream’s mandate.
The workstream on scaling up green finance is structured around 3 main topics:

1) Promoting the adoption of sustainable and responsible principles in central banks’ investment approaches
2) Understanding and monitoring the market dynamics of green finance
3) Providing a joint central banks’ view on the various challenges climate change raises for the conduct of monetary policy

7. Mark Carney, Former Bank Of Canada Head

Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada, and later headed the Bank of England. Anyway, this man is now in charge of “UN Climate Finance”, and openly threatens to bankrupt companies who don’t play ball with the climate change scam. It used to be that gangsters would burn down your business if you didn’t pay. Now, they just pass laws to make it impossible to operate.

8. BoC Pushing Digital Currency

https://twitter.com/bankofcanada/status/1276160904456003584

You know all that hype about the Bank of Canada looking to push some form of digital currency to replace money? Well yes, they are actually looking into it.

9. Should Banks Push Climate Agenda?

Banks, like any institution, should stick to their assigned role and not meddle elsewhere. Why stray so far into unrelated areas? It’s because they have an agenda, and are just using the financial sector as a means and excuse of implementing that agenda.

(1) https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/08/the-great-reset/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SPPB200820
(2) bank.of.canada.great.reset.agenda
(3) https://archive.is/129UE
(4) https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/05/staff-discussion-paper-2020-3/
(5) https://archive.is/GP1d5
(6) https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/05/financial-system-review-2019/?#Vulnerability-5-Climate-change
(7) https://archive.is/Ji1bg
(8) https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/06/bank-canada-contributes-new-publications-network-greening-financial-system/
(9) https://archive.is/uCN97
(10) https://www.ngfs.net/en
(11) https://archive.is/8wUbJ
(12) ttps://www.banque-france.fr/en/communique-de-presse/joint-statement-founding-members-central-banks-and-supervisors-network-greening-financial-system-one
(13) founding.members.greening.of.financial.system
(14) https://archive.is/o1PaR
(15) https://www.ngfs.net/en/about-us/governance/workstream-scaling-green-finance
(16) https://archive.is/cYahU
(17) https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs-a-sustainable-and-responsible-investment-guide.pdf
(18) ngfs-a-sustainable-and-responsible-investment-guide
(19) https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/06/staff-analytical-note-2020-10/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SANH200624
(20) https://archive.is/0EeTp

Posted on

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

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

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

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

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

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

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

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

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

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

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

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

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

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

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

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

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

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

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

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

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

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

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

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

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

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

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

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

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

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

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

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

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

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

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

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

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

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

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

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

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

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

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

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

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

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

Posted on

Guest Post: Question Regarding Recent Antifa/BLM Riots In The US, By Blaise Vanne

(One of the many, MANY examples of Black Lives Matter harassing innocent bystanders. This was aired by Sky New Australia — of a DC restaurant — and shown August 25)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

Even when slavery is brought up, it is solely in the context of Whites oppressing and enslaving others. The rest of slavery’s history is never discussed This would destroy the narrative that Whites owe everyone else reparations, and shatter the idea that Whites should forever feel guilt over distant ancestors.

2. Contribution By Blaise Vanne

Since whites are disproportionately incarcerated more than Asians, do Asians, many of who have been here since the 1800s, then owe whites reparations? Should Democrats, who have caused the black underclass in their leftist cities, be the ones who pay? Can we count the $15 to 22 trillion already spent in the War on Poverty towards this figure (and where we now have MORE poverty than when we started) towards reparations? Will the Learjet leftists in Hollyweird be forced to open up their zillion room mansions to house inner city blacks (think far left Tom Hanks’ 14,500 sq. foot mega mansion in Pacific Hts, bought for $36mm in 2020), or will their self-serving pandering be more than enough? Will Nancy Pelosi’s highly protected (by men with GUNS) mega- mansion in Pacific Hts, San Francisco take in squatters? Will you ask multimillionaire Bernie Sanders to open up one of his three houses, such as the $600k one with 500’ of Lake Champlain lakefront? Reparations up to $14 trillion were suggested to Bret Baier by black zillionaire BET president Bob Johnson, but given that black Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates says 388,000 Africans landed on N. American shores, total, while in contrast Dr. Robert Davis of Ohio State says up to 1.25 million Europeans were taken as slaves by Muslims to their lands during roughly same period (3 times as many!), with their corsairs even reaching as far as Iceland, does that mean Muslims owe white Europeans $42 trillion (3x as much)? Can someone tell me where to sign up? Just asking. I could sure use the “free” dough.

Also, will white descendants of indentured servants get some reparations, or should descendants of blacks who owned other blacks as slaves owe reparations, such as Anthony Johnson (c. 1600 – 1670), a black Angolan who was one of the earlier slave owners legally recognized by the Colony of Virginia courts. Do we owe Russia money (the word “Slav” as in “Slavic language” derives from the same root as our word for slave (from late 13c., “a person who is the chattel or property of another,” from Old French esclave (13c.), in turn derived from Medieval Latin Sclavus “slave” – so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.), or perhaps the Irish, for by the 1630’s, Ireland was the primary source of slaves in the English slave trade. In fact, a 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Even Scientific American has questioned why the Irish surnames have such a strong presence in places such as Montserrat, Jamaica, St. Kitts, etc. Once Iceland gets paid for its citizens taken as slaves to Muslim North Africa and Turkey, does Iceland then owe Ireland money, in that perhaps half the population genetically speaking was Irish slaves, taken by Vikings? Oh yes, I forgot: Muslims also took many English as slaves, with perhaps 3 – 5,000 in Algiers alone. And of course, the Romans had almost everyone has slaves, many from Germanic tribes, so they must owe everyone?

Finally, if we are looking at systemic discrimination, any word from your founders in Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, re. their roots in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which is a descendant of the Maoist inspired New Communist Movement. The reason I ask is The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard Univ. Press, says that various flavours of communism and leftism murdered around 100 million people last century. Since Antifa seems to be concerned about “oppression,” they just may want to look at that.

Oh yes, I almost forgot! Could Antifa also advise why your allies in the US are now destroying statues of leading anti-slavery statues, including defacing Lincoln himself, as well as Matthias Baldwin, who fiercely fought against slavery 30 years before the Civil War (in which MILLIONS died to end slavery), John Greeleaf, a prominent Quaker pacifist/anti-abolitionist? Anyhow, I thought “Hate had no home here” – or do your friends in your Tripartite Pact have special exemptions?

Antifa… Looking forward to your answers. Or not.

Posted on

WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

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

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=7
(2) https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/what-are-the-international-health-regulations-and-emergency-committees
(3) https://archive.is/Ok5jx
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/international-activities/international-partners-organizations/world-health-organization.html
(5) https://archive.is/nwz4S
(6) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(7) https://archive.is/wwRfk
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(9) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85816
(10) https://archive.is/vJJUE
(11) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85816/Official_record176_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(12) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=1395913&View=5
(13) https://archive.is/YrTHz
(14) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/38/1/80
(15) https://archive.is/ZbPDU
(16) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/09-07-2020-independent-evaluation-of-global-covid-19-response-announced
(17) https://archive.is/kofuW
(18) https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.may_.2020.who_.convention.free_.speech.pdf
(20) https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
(21) https://archive.is/OgNwP
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf;jsessionid=8C456867FD2A9E524D1147D63125FD59?sequence=1
(23) https://www.who.int/ihr/about/FAQ2009.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.frequently.asked_.questions.pdf
(25) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69770/WHO_CDS_EPR_IHR_2007.1_eng.pdf?sequence=1
(26) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihrbrief1en.pdf?ua=1
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.international.obligations.pdf
(28) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihr_brief_no_2_en.pdf?ua=1
(29) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.reporting.requirements.pdf
(30) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/ihr_brief_no_3_en.pdf?ua=1
(31) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.brief_.2005.points.of_.entry_.pdf

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

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

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

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

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

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

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

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

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

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

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

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

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

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

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

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

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

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

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

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

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

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

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

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

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

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

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

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

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

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

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

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

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

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

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

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

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

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

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

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

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

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