Eugenics In Canada: 20% Of Babies Aborted In “Pro-Choice Movement”

Ever wonder just how much of the Canadian public has been lost due to “abortion” in recent decades? Considering the size and scale of this, it must be good business.

According to a compilation of data from the Federal Government, approximately 20% of pregnancies have ended in abortion. Of course, this relies on transparent reporting, so the number could be much higher. These totals exclude miscarriages and stillbirths.

For a good source on this data, visit Love4Life. There is a considerable amount of statistical data compiled, and it connects back to official Government sources.

Now, there are going to be some discrepancies in the data. This is partly because of incomplete reporting, and also because some sources have different numbers. Nonetheless, it should paint the picture quite gruesomely.

Let’s drop the spoiler here: there were over 4,222,858 abortions between 1970 and 2020. This isn’t a joke. Our “pro-choice” supporters and policies have literally killed millions of Canadians.

It’s also quite interesting that many of the same people are behind two (seemingly) opposing ideologies within Western countries. Then again, population replacement is just some racist conspiracy theory.

[1] Promote widespread abortion locally
[2] Promote mass immigration to counter falling birth rates

Anyhow, let’s look at some of these numbers:

*** The U.N. has some data prior to 1974, so that’s added in:

YEAR ABORTIONS
1970 11,200
1971 30,923
1973 43,201
1974 52,435
1975 53,705
1976 58,712
1977 59,864
1978 66,710
1979 69,745
1980 72,099
1981 71,911
1982 75,071
1983 69,368
1984 69,449
1985 69,216
1986 69,572
1987 70,023
1988 72,693
1989 79,315
1990 92,901
1991 95,059
1992 102,085
1993 104,403
1994 106,255
1995 108,248
1996 111,659
1997 111,709
1998 110,331
1999 105,666
2000 105,427
2001 106,418
2002 105,154
2003 103,768
2004 100,039
2005 96,815
2006 91,310
2007 98,762
2008 95,876
2009 93,755
2010 *64,641
2011 108,844
2012 100,958
2013 102,446
2014 100,194
2015 100,104
2016 97,764
2017 94,030
2018 85,294
2019 83,576
2020 74,155

**Note: data is combined from CIHI and Statistics Canada. The Canadian Institute for Health Information does have considerable recent data on abortion in this country.

*2010 is considered incomplete, since there wasn’t reporting from Quebec.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada also compiles recent statistics on abortion numbers here. (see archive). It’s actually pretty morbid to think about.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 1,375,774 abortions between the years of 1987 to 2000. This is a span of 14 years, and showed an average of about 98,000 abortions per year. This amounted to some 263 performed per day.

If we factor in the data from 1970 to 2020 (data from a few different tables), there were 4,222,858 abortions. This covers 51 years, and would be approximately 86,000 per year. Converted into daily totals, that means roughly 227 babies would have died, every single day.

Don’t worry, it’s about to get a lot more disgusting when the ages of the girls and women are taken into account. There are an awful lot of children getting abortions.

YEAR ABORTIONS UNKNOWN UNDER 15 15 TO 17 18 TO 19
1974 52,435 0 623 7,937 7,868
1975 53,705 0 650 8,135 8,038
1976 58,712 0 717 8,551 8,764
1977 59,864 0 697 8,684 9,051
1978 66,710 0 642 9,228 10,453
1979 69,745 0 694 9,661 10,827
1980 72,099 0 613 9,650 11,115
1981 71,911 0 607 8,954 10,785
1982 75,071 0 586 8,463 11,073
1983 69,368 0 561 7,150 9,568
1984 69,449 0 504 6,887 8,996
1985 69,216 0 554 6,658 8,525
1986 69,572 0 430 6,636 8,497
1987 70,023 0 433 6,411 8,587
1988 72,693 0 424 6,361 8,916
1989 79,315 0 452 6,446 9,755
1990 92,901 0 597 7,635 10,639
1991 95,059 0 495 7,722 10,492
1992 102,085 0 580 8,153 11,037
1993 104,403 1 659 8,249 11,740
1994 106,255 338 526 8,386 12,371
1995 108,248 2,242 545 7,887 12,388
1996 111,659 2,439 532 8,117 13,021
1997 111,709 3,547 511 8,175 12,458
1998 110,331 3,832 464 7,741 13,118
1999 105,666 232 464 7,253 13,357
2000 105,427 219 389 7,369 10,611
2001 106,418 33 412 7,222 12,746
2002 105,154 17 337 6,381 12,626
2003 103,768 14 302 5,785 11,871
2004 100,039 5 304 5,974 10,964
2005 96,815 2 284 5,588 10,477
2006 91,310 156 267 5,608 9,609

Data available from Statistics Canada: 1987 to 2000. Another version, which goes from 1974 to 2006, is also available. There are a few discrepancies, but the total is still shocking.

It’s also worth pointing out that starting in 1994, there were large numbers of women getting abortions for which there was no age listed. Just a hunch, but most of them were probably either in the country illegally, or didn’t want to disclose that they were minors.

Also, these are just “official” statistics. It’s very likely that there are a lot more abortions that have gone on, and are unreported. And recently:

induced-abortion-can-2015-en-web
induced-abortion-can-2016-en-web
induced-abortion-2017-en-web (1)
induced-abortions-reported-in-canada-in-2018-updated-data-tables-en-web
induced-abortions-reported-in-canada-in-2019-en (1)
induced-abortions-reported-in-canada-2020-en

There were 100,104 abortions reported in 2015.
There were 97,764 reported in 2016.
There were 94,030 reported in 2017.
There were 85,294 reported in 2018.
There were 83,576 reported in 2019.
There were 74,155 reported in 2020.

But don’t worry. There are no doubt countless politicians and public figures working diligently to reverse this trend, right?

And what do “conservatives” in Canada have to say about this? They don’t seem to care about the millions who’ve died as a result of abortion. There’s no ideological issue with infanticide in general. However, they insist that babies not be killed simply because of their sex. This was Bill C-233, a Private Member’s Bill in the last session.

There are also major demographic implications for abortion on this scale, which needs to be addressed as well.

The topic of births and deaths is certainly important to consider. That said, including abortion — especially being so widespread — changes the dynamics considerably.

Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

A few years back, it was covered how Canada had a growing population even without immigration. In fairness, it’s not clear how much of this was due to birth tourism. However, the rates weren’t plummeting as people were led to believe.

A quick and dirty estimation (based on births and abortions) would be that approximately 20% of the pregnancies — excluding miscarriages — ended up being aborted. This translated to 1 in 5.

YEAR BIRTHS ABORTIONS B + A % ABORTED
1991 402,533 95,059 497,592 19.1%
1992 398,643 102,085 500,728 20.3%
1993 388,394 104,403 492,797 21.2%
1994 385,114 106,255 491,369 21.6%
1995 378,016 108,248 486,264 22.3%
1996 366,200 111,659 477,859 23.3%
1997 348,598 111,709 460,307 24.3%
1998 342,418 110,331 452,749 24.4%
1999 337,249 105,666 442,915 23.8%
2000 327,882 105,427 433,309 24.3%
2001 333,744 106,418 440,162 24.2%
2002 328,802 105,154 433,956 24.2%
2003 335,202 103,768 438,970 23.6%
2004 337,072 100,039 447,111 22.4%
2005 342,176 96,815 438,991 22.0%
2006 354,617 91,310 445,927 20.5%
2007 367,864 98,762 466,626 21.2%
2008 377,886 95,876 473,762 20.2%
2009 380,863 93,755 474,618 19.8%
2010 377,213 *64,641 441,854 *14.6%
2011 377,636 108,844 486,480 22.3%
2012 381,869 100,958 482,827 20.9%
2013 380,323 102,446 482,769 21.2%
2014 384,100 100,194 484,294 20.7%
2015 382,392 100,104 482,496 20.7%
2016 383,102 97,764 480,866 20.3%
2017 379,450 94,030 473,480 19.9%
2018 375,390 85,294 460,684 18.5%
2019 375,229 83,576 458,805 18.2%
2020 361,667 74,155 435,822 17.0%

*2010 is skewed, since Quebec didn’t fully report their totals.

This isn’t hyperbole to claim that 20% of pregnancies in recent years end with an abortion. Slaughtering large segments of future generations has been happening for decades.

Again, 4,222,858 abortions between 1970 and 2020, and that’s just Canada. Also, these are just the official figures. Factoring in the unreported, the number is likely much higher.

Don’t worry about the falling birth rates and the slaughter of Canadian children. After all, we can just import a replacement population in order to keep up.

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310016901
(2) https://archive.ph/OhV01
(3) https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/aca40ae3-d026-45b8-8e37-9185b4347c43
(4) https://archive.ph/Y7DYZ
(5) http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2021/03/cihi-is-still-underreporting-abortions.html
(6) https://love4life.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Annual_20_203.pdf
(7) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-223-x/82-223-x2008000-eng.pdf
(8) https://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a05?lang=eng&id=1069005
(9) https://www.cihi.ca/en/access-data-and-reports/data-tables?keyword=abortion&published_date=All&type_of_care=All&place_of_care=All&population_group=All&health_care_quality=All&health_conditions_outcomes=All&health_system_overview=All&sort_by=field_published_date_value&items_per_page=10
(10) https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf
(11) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1310042801#timeframe
(12) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001
(13) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-233
(14) http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=abortion+statistics&d=POP&f=tableCode%3a17
(15) https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/
(16) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

Poilievre’s And Baird’s Questionable Commitment To Free Speech

Pierre Poilievre campaigning to become the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Notwithstanding his nonsensical claim about “running to be Prime Minister” (that’s not how the system works), he goes on and on about making Canada the freest country in the world.

While there seems to be nothing wrong with this sales pitch, his commitment to freedom — or more specifically, free speech — is quite questionable. Nothing politicians say should ever be taken at face value. Instead, it’s more important to dig into them to verify.

Poilievre’s campaign for CPC leadership is co-chaired by John Baird, a former Cabinet Minister. However, looking at what Baird has done since leaving politics is cause for concern.

In 2018, Baird became a Director with CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. He has long been a supporter of the organization. This is a lobbyist group that attempts to change policy in Canada. What’s disturbing is what CIJA lists in terms of its political influence.

Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit
Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream. Activities include:
Collect examples of how antisemitism presents itself in the context of COVID19
Create website landing page for campaign to highlight the campaign’s purpose and goals
•Prepare social media calendar for the duration of the campaign
•Prepare Facebook ads, prepare toolkit to distribute to partner organizations to promote the campaign
•Program content for campaign, run Facebook ads, and ensure participation from various cultural groups; and
•Report to government and stakeholders on the outcome of the campaign. The Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP) supports the priorities of the Digital Citizen Initiative by providing time-limited financial assistance that will support democracy and social cohesion in Canada in a digital world by enhancing and/or supporting efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats to our country’s democracy and social cohesion.
Provide economic support for the charitable and not-for-profit sector through a direct granting program. Donations from Canadians should be incentivized through a temporary enhancement of the charitable giving tax credit, or through a donor matching program, whereby the government matches donations from Canadians.
Public Security threats to the safety and security of the Jewish community of Canada and the extension of funding of capital costs and staff training for security of communities at risk

The project ‘United Against Online Hate’ aims to develop a national coalition with numerous targeted communities to actively combat online hate, following recommendations from the study conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have been granted $141,000 for the government’s current fiscal year (ending March 31 2021). We were also awarded $31,800 for the year April 1 2021 to March 31 2022.

Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
A civil remedy based in human rights law, included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, with respect to combating hate speech, including antisemitism. Training for provincial attorneys general, prosecutors, and police to enforce Criminal Code hate speech provisions. Training and parameters should cite the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.

CITIZENSHIP ACT (continued support for the power of the state under the current citizenship act to remove citizenship in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism and extreme promotion of hate.)
Civil remedy included in the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
Diplomatic relations with Iran should not be renewed until specific conditions are met, including an end to calls for the destruction of Israel, an end to state-sponsored terrorism, and the provision of all evidence related to Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. The entirety of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be banned by the government.

Equip police departments to counter hate crimes and support targeted communities by providing additional resources to bolster existing police hate crime and community liaison units. Where such units do not exist, funding should be provided to establish them.

Update the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism and online hate. Create a national strategy to tackle online hate and radicalization using the 2019 Justice Committee report, “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, as a foundation. A strategy should draw upon the Christchurch Call, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.

Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program
Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code and/or the Human Rights Act.

Policies or Program
Accountability for Anti-Racism Initiatives: Public accountability measures should be developed and implemented to support and uphold genuine progress in combating hate in all its forms, as outlined in Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019–2022.

Advocate for restitution for Holocaust Survivors: Canada should continue leveling diplomatic pressure on countries in Eastern Europe that have evaded their responsibility to pass meaningful restitution laws.
Advocating for the development of a national anti-poverty strategy.
Agriculture Canada: Assist in securing termination of Israeli ban on Canadian beef imports as a result of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) protocols.

This is just a partial list of their lobbying activities. However, it’s obvious that policies related to speech are a very important portion of it.

It seems completely incongruent that people who claim to value freedom would be so willing to water it down under the guise of fighting hate speech.

Poilievre and Baird are also silent about Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill that would criminalize Holocaust denial. Not only would this be a criminal offence, but it could result in prison time. This came from “Conservative” M.P. Kevin Waugh.

Iqra Khalid (rightfully) got a lot of flak for bringing in M-103, a Motion to finance the “study” of Islamophobia. That said, she never proposed putting anyone in prison over it. This is so much worse.

Waugh was lobbied by CIJA recently before introducing this Bill. It’s fair to assume that these are the people pushing for it.

An interesting Twitter thread shows the problem with right-wing politicians in general. There seems to be the expectation to pander endlessly, at least to 1 foreign nation. However, similar pandering with Islamic countries is a cause for concern. Whatever happened to focusing on your constituents?

Poilievre (and “conservatives” in general) claim to be supporters of freedom and individual rights. After all, it’s only the lefties that hate freedom, at least in theory. That being said, they are silent about efforts to erode those rights from within.

And Maxime Bernier? Will he address this?
Probably not.
He spends more time talking about overpriced milk.

Other red flags include Baird’s ties to the World Economic Forum. Poilievre has denied being a part of it, despite being listed in the database. Also, he doesn’t seem to mind his campaign chair being associated with WEF, and he doesn’t overtly condemn the group. Nor does he appear to object to the Eurasia Group side gig.

Another problem is that Poilievre was relatively silent when Provincial Premiers (many of them “Conservatives”) were infringing on the rights of Canadians. It’s only when Provincial martial law measures were — mostly — removed, did he start his crusade against Trudeau. It’s opportunism, to say the least.

There are of course other concerns with Baird and Poilievre. These are just a few of the larger ones.

Unfortunately, far too few Canadians will do any due diligence on candidates before voting for them. People need to look beyond the catchy slogans to see who they really represent.

(1) https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1512836656646270977
(2) https://www.pierre4pm.ca/team
(3) https://www.cija.ca/john-baird-why-israel-holds-such-a-special-place-in-my-heart/
(4) https://www.cija.ca/a-conversation-with-john-baird/
(5) https://www.cija.ca/cija-confirms-appointment-of-new-directors/
(6) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(10) https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/1520441785285234688
(11) https://www.weforum.org/people/john-baird
(12) Wayback Machine — Pierre Poilievre
(13) https://www.eurasiagroup.net/people/JBaird

Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaccination Numbers Climb

A reader to the site recently brought up a freedom of information request release related to “Covid deaths”. Nova Scotia is a province that releases their FOIs after they are sent off — with personal information redacted, of course.

There were zero (0) so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2020 until February 28, 2021.

By contrast, there were 105 so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2021 until February 28, 2022. This would be the period where vaccine passports were implemented.

Of course, this “virus” isn’t real, and germ theory is a hoax. That being said, it’s pretty interesting when Nova Scotia’s own data shows that there are more deaths resulting well after the vaccine release. Even their information would lead reasonable people to question the side effects of these shots.

The definition of a “Covid death” has also been covered on this site. It amounts to nothing less than medical and scientific fraud.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated.

(1) 2022-00335-HEA_PublicPackage.pdf Deaths by age ranges
(2) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic-spreading
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/

WHO Constitution: Why The “Global Pandemic Treaty” Is Largely Irrelevant

“Conservative Inc.” politicians and media heads have been spouting off recently about the proposed “Global Pandemic Treaty” that the World Health Organization is considering. While it appears they’re addressing an important topic, the public is never given the complete story.

An enormous disservice to the public is done since they never mention the similar agreements that are already in place. Countries signed away their sovereignty generations ago. Either these people know nothing about that, or they pretend not to know.

This helps to illustrate why there doesn’t appear to be any realistic political solution available. Even the “opposition” voices act as gatekeepers. Whether it’s intentional, or through ignorance, the result is the same: the public not getting vital information. This applies both to media and politics.

All of this data is freely available, and can be found in seconds.

There are other, interrelated Treaties Canada is a part of. It’s best to just search the entire listings. The relevant ones are posted under Health, or as Health & Sanitation.

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

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

Other issues Con Inc. won’t bring up:

The problem is more than just Federal. Various Provincial “Health Acts” contain sections of WHO-IHR written right into them. See Part 1 and Part 2. Of course, Municipalities are required to follow Provincial orders. The result is that at all levels, people’s rights are suspended under public health agreements that weren’t written in this country.

All said: none of this is shared by more “mainstream” sources. It begs the obvious question: do people not know the full truth, or are they deliberately trying to conceal the full extent of the problem?

If that wasn’t bad enough, the World Health Organization has given immunity to all employees and agents who work on their behalf, anywhere in the world. Nothing says accountability quite like the power to act without consequences.

As for the Constitution of the World Health Organization, let’s take a look at what’s in there. Anyone serious about national sovereignty needs to abandon the WHO completely.

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

Sounds pretty straightforward. If you want to be a Member of the World Health Organization, you need to accept or adopt their constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The World Health Organization has the power to adopt regulations regarding quarantine and international spread of diseases. It will also have the authority regarding naming them, case definitions, and putting pharma products on the market. Ever wonder why there’s no discussion locally? It’s because the major decisions are all being made by outside institutions.

Article 62
Each Member shall report annually on the action taken with respect to recommendations made to it by the Organization and with respect to conventions, agreements and regulations.

Article 63
Each Member shall communicate promptly to the Organization important laws, regulations, official reports and statistics pertaining to health which have been published in the State concerned.

Article 64
Each Member shall provide statistical and epidemiological reports in a manner to be determined by the Health Assembly

Again, this is supposedly “voluntary”, but countries are required to report their actions, including what laws and policies they’ve enacted to enforce WHO dictates.

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 Member

How are we an independent state, when WHO officials have the right to operate on our territory, and are awarded immunity (presumably legal) from the consequences of their actions?

Instead of pandering over the proposed Global Pandemic Treaty, people like Leslyn Lewis should be talking about getting out of the World Health Organization altogether.

Sure, the call to fire Theresa Tam is catchy, but it misses the big picture.

(1) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(2) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(3) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(4) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(8) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(10) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publications/basic-documents-constitution-of-who179f0d3d-a613-4760-8801-811dfce250af.pdf?sfvrsn=e8fb384f_1&download=true
(11) WHO Constitution Full Document

Academy Of Divine Knowledge: Connecting Many “Freedom Fighters” In The West

This is fairly old news at this point, but it’s worth a reminder that many of the prominent names in the “resistance” movement all seem to know each other. One organization is the Academy of Divine Knowledge. For some reason, the group recently changed its name To UnityD. Perhaps the Star of David with the cube inside was too overt.

Household names include: David Icke; Del Big Tree; Judy Mikovits; Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; Carrie Madej; and Sherri Tenpenny. Interestingly, most of them promote the idea that there is some deadly virus, even if they object to the martial law measures most of the world put in place.

Canada’s favourite freedom fighter, Pat King, is also part of this group.

MEET OUR TEACHERS & SPECIAL GUESTS
At the Academy of Divine Knowledge, we strive to create a hub of the greatest and most progressive minds, across all disciplines, who are in alignment with our mission to awaken and inspire the collective. Our teachers and special guests are passionate about spreading truth, expansive knowledge and sharing their Lights with the world.

One has to wonder if these speakers go on social media to speak the truth, or to parrot what their organization believes. There are few, if any, disclaimers about this association.

And if spiritual enlightenment isn’t really your thing, you can always buy some merchandise. Even if your movement fails, at least you made some money from it. Not much different from Hugs Over Masks, is it?

While all of is a bit cultish, the head of this group worth a mention.

The man behind Academy of Divine Knowledge is Sacha Stone. He has quite a few interesting connections, to put it mildly.

According to Stone’s biography, (see archive here), he has headed the UN Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, or UN-IREO since 2010. However, it appears to have been expelled as a UN NGO in 2016, for failing to update its status.

To address the elephant in the room: it’s a cause for concern when one of the main voices opposed to UN-WHO medical tyranny is also a part of the UN.

“One World, One Humanity”

Stone also founded Humanitad in 1999, another NGO.

Humanitad is dedicated to inspiring tolerance and goodwill between people of all nations and faiths. It is committed to ushering in a new era of truth, transparency and right-mindedness whilst inspiring growth in the spiritual framework within which we function as a species.

Humanitad is about people and the intelligent inquiry into the diverse elements which unite us all as people, diversities which nourish our imagination and sense of fellowship and do not lead to conflict, which in turn leads to enclosures and false-divisions. Fellowship is the natural human condition but we are all too easily led and driven to mind-sets of conflict and contrariness. Such seeds are invariably planted in the collective by the few, and the ‘few’ are those who are invariably led by appetites for power, profit and pleasure.

The human heart speaks a simple language and a universal logic. It is this logic and this language which seeks fellowship amongst humanity, beyond artificial divides of religion, nationality and creed. It is the contention of Humanitad’s founders that the biggest obstacle in the path of positive change is the idea that we are too small to make a difference. An idea is as big as we make it, and in reaching toward our highest and most noble expression, we should recall that each of us are a perfect microcosm, a perfect fractal of the whole. Our birthright is that of sons and daughters of G-d. No less.

One of the initiatives Humanitad supports is the ITNJ, which is the International Tribunal for Natural Justice. Supposedly, there were also hearings on the “pandemic” measures, and the planetary shutdown in 2020.

While this may be unrelated, Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer, claimed to be pursuing an international lawsuit against this tyranny. What ended up happening was that he held “hearings” outside of any legal setting, which carry no weight whatsoever. Was this to pursue natural justice?

The MDG Award Committee in Stone’s biography refers to the Millennial Development Goals. It’s to recognize people and organizations that have gone above and beyond in advancing various UN agendas over the years.

Why is all of this important? Because, even in 2020, the “resistance” across the West seemed to be inorganic. Many big names all seemed to be connected, and long before this happened.

While this is worth a deep dive from interested readers, I’ll link one piece from Bartoll, which goes more globalist and freemason connections. And there are some really good videos on Bitchute on this topic.

If there’s anything to be taken away from all of this: it’s that no one should be idolized.

(1) https://academyofdk.com/meet-our-teachers/
(2) https://archive.ph/47a5H
(3) https://academyofdk.com/shop/
(4) https://unifyd.shop/
(5) https://archive.ph/PNb60
(6) https://unifyd.com/
(7) https://unifyd.tv/meet-our-teachers/
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sacha-stone-0523973/
(9) sacha stone _ LinkedIn Profile
(10) https://bartoll.se/2021/05/the-academy-of-divine-knowledge/
(11) https://ungc-production.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/commitment_letters/11530/original/UN_Global_COmpact_IREO.pdf?1270770991
(12) UN_Global_COmpact_IREO
(13) https://www.humanitad.org/
(14) http://www.humanitad.org/category/millennium-development-goals-awards/
(15) https://www.humanitad.org/initiatives/
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnKFxuz2Cbo&t=40s
(17) https://www.bitchute.com/video/nFStyLRy0aXk/

Recycling Used “Covid” Masks Apparently A Thing Now

If you (or your children) go to college or university, you’ll undoubtedly remember that there were mask mandates until very recently. Of course, there are many places that still have them to this day. The justification was that there was some deadly virus, and that the masks — and vaccine passports — were necessary.

Notwithstanding the fact that “Covid-19” doesn’t exist, and that germ theory is pretty much based on lies, one would think that schools would be taking this seriously. After all, shouldn’t there be biohazardous containers everywhere to dispose of used masks?

Not only is that not the case, but it seems that recycling masks is also a fairly common thing. Not sure how exactly this works, but wouldn’t that endanger everyone?

This isn’t an attempt to justify endless waste. However, any adult capable of rational thought should be asking why this is being done. After all, this (alleged) virus is (allegedly) what caused the biggest economic crash in generations. Why pinch pennies just to recycle biohazardous waste?

For anyone curious, check the college in your area to see if they have these bins.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus at all.

%d bloggers like this: