Category: Human Rights

Posted on

NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Offering Money To Those Willing To Target Minorities For Vaccination

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, these 4 bodies held a joint conference to discuss funding opportunities for targeting minority groups in Canada for vaccination. This isn’t limited to these CV “vaccines”, but is aimed at vaccination in general. In case anyone wonders that the videos are taken out of context, the entire videos and power-points (both English and French), are included in the following links.

Encouraging vaccine confidence in Canada.ppt_
Renforcer la confiance a l’egard des vaccins au Canada

CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (English)
CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (French)

NSERC Page Announcing Grant Program

Video Player
Video Player
Video Player
Video Player
Video Player

This is a continuation from this previous article. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Studies and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), are launching this joint program. $2.25 million is to be spent. Grants are to be up to $50,000 each. In theory, 45 organizations could receive this money.

To be clear, this isn’t about financing research into the causes and details of “vaccine hesitancy”. Instead, this is about employing institutions (who present as scientific) to push the narrative that vaccination is a good thing. This is paying organizations to promote the push the narrative. In short, this is glorified advertising. It is made clear throughout that this is not about employing research.

If you want this money, you need to figure out how to target a minority community in Canada, getting them more accepting of mass vaccination. Having a science background is not important, provided you are good at selling things. Is your integrity worth just $50,000?

You may be forgiven for thinking that CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC were about providing grants for scientific research. That is supposed to be their agenda. But not today.

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake

RE: CANUCK LAW ON MEDIA SUBSIDIES, DONATIONS
(a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
(b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
(c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
(d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
(e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
(f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
(g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
(h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
(i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

Other articles are available above. They concern both the corruption of the media in Canada, and the “vaccine hesitancy” research that has been underway for a long time. Take the deep dive.

While so much of the Canadian media is compromised, this site never will be. Truth matters much more than money.

Posted on

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

Video Player

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

Video Player

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

Video Player

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

Video Player

Video Player

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.

Posted on

CV #10(C): Active Federal Pharma Lobbying Registrations, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, there are 69 ACTIVE registrations that are flagged under the search word of “vaccine”. This includes multiple registrations from the same company, and a few irrelevant hits. Lobbyists aren’t cheap, and there is considerable money tied up in all of this.

Also, what exactly is going on with that proposed vaccine injury compensation program?

1. No Details In Vaccine Injury Program

News release
December 10, 2020 – Ottawa, ON – Public Health Agency of Canada
.
We as Canadians pride ourselves on our commitment to each other. By getting vaccinated, we protect one another and our way of life. Vaccines are safe, effective and one of the best ways to prevent serious illness like COVID-19.

Vaccines are only approved in Canada after thorough and independent review of the scientific evidence. They are also closely monitored once on the market and can quickly be removed from market if safety concerns are identified. Notwithstanding the rigour of clinical trials and excellence in vaccine delivery, a small number of Canadians may experience an adverse event following immunization, caused by vaccines or their administration.

Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it’s common to have mild and harmless side effects — this is the body’s natural response, as it’s working to build immunity against a disease. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. The chances of this are extremely rare — less than one in a million — and we have a duty to help if this occurs.

It is for this reason that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines, in collaboration with provinces and territories. Building on the model in place in Québec for over 30 years, the program will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.

Quick facts
Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. They happen less than one time in a million.

It was announced on December 10, 2020, that a vaccine injury program would be launched in cooperation with the Provinces. That was 2 1/2 months ago, and no details have emerged. Considering that mass vaccination is going on NOW, this is pretty urgent.

In “collaboration with the Provinces” implies that they will have to go along with it as well. If history is any indictation, Federal-Provincial talks go very slowly.

While it’s claimed that vaccines undergo serious testing PRIOR to their approval, that isn’t really the case. Details will be provided in the next section.

2. Vaccines Approved While Still In Testing

Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.

People naturally assume that a medical product (such as a vaccine), is thoroughly tested prior to being approved. Actually, the Section 30.1 of the Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order and approve almost anything. And yes, such an Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

3. Active Lobbying Registrations On “Vaccines”

COMPANY LOBBYIST/POSITION/FIRM
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. Jane Chung, President
Bayer, Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Bayer, Inc. *David Murray, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition *William Dempster, 3Sixty Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition Paulette Eddy, Consultant
Best Medicines Coalition Jay Strauss, Consultant
Biotecanada Andrew Casey, President & CEO
Canadian Animal Health Institute Kevin Bosch, Hill+Knowlton Strategies
Canadian Medical Association E. Ann Collins
Canadian Medical Association Timothy Smith, Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Pharmacists Association Annette Robinson, Director
Canadian Pharmacists Association Glen Doucet, Chief Executive Officer
Entos Pharmaceuticals Farid, Faroud, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Conor Mahoney, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals *Andrew Retfalvi, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Jay Strauss, Consultant
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
GlaxoSmithKline Faris El-Refaie, President
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Bridget Howe, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Ben Parsons, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Amber Ruddy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Immune Biosolutions Frédéric Leduc, Président
Innovative Medicines Canada Andrew Balfour, Rubicon Strategy Inc.
Innovative Medicines Canada Pamela Fralick, President
Intervac Int’l Vaccine Centre *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
Janssen Inc. (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson Jorge Bartolome, President
Malaika Vaccine idee Inyangudor, Wellington Advocacy
Medicago Inc. Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group
Medicago Inc. Patricia Sibal, Crestview Strategy
Merck Canada Inc. Anna Van Acker, President
Moderna Therapeutics Paul Monlezun, Public Affairs Advisors
National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada David Valentin, Liaison Strategies
Particle Vaccine Canada Ltd. *Dylan McGuinty, Director
*Pfizer Canada ULC Cole C. Pinnow, President
PlantEXT Inc. *Andre Albinati, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. *Charles Bird, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. Craig Robinson, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
Sanofi Pasteur Limited Fabien Marino, Vice President
Sanofi Pasteur Limited *David Angus, Capital Hill Group
University of Saskatchewan *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
*University of Saskatchewan Peter Stoicheff, President and Vice-Chancellor
Variation Biotechnologies, Inc. Francisco Diaz-Mitoma, Consultant
Vaxil Biotherapeutics Lester Scheininger, Barrister and Solicitor
Zebra Technologies *Adria Minsky, Cumberland Strategies
Zebra Technologies Alec Newton, Cumberland Strategies
  • means person has held public office, or organization has former public office holders currently on staff.

4. GSK Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

The 4 lobbyists registered to advocate on behalf of GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), have all held public office in some capacity. But don’t worry, they are probably neutral actors here, and nothing improper will happen.

5. Other Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

Of course, Crestview Strategy, Ashton Arsenault, Zakery Blais & Jason Clark have all been addressed in previous pieces. Please check them out for more information.

This might also be a good time to bring up the people that have Doug Ford’s attention, Bill 160, Alberta and Quebec lobbying as well.

Posted on

About Michael Chong’s Motion Concerning Genocide In China….

Canada passed a resolution, declaring a genocide in China. It was sponsored by Michael Chong, and Ontario Member of Parliament with the Conservative Party of Canada. While the Motion itself is not the issue, the lack of consistency is.

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; or 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.

2. Text Of Motion Declaring Genocide

MOTION TEXT
That,
.
(a) in the opinion of the House, the People’s Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention”, including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and
.
(b) given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the House, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, call upon the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Olympic Games if the Chinese government continues this genocide and call on the government to officially adopt this position.

Michael Chong introduced a Motion to declare what has been going on in China as “genocide”. Have they always thought that the Chinese Government was bad?

3. Michael Chong Then V.S. Now

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/michael-chong-1/
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/2/18/michael-chong-1/

It’s interesting how Chong was a huge fan of letting China infiltrate Canada (via FIPA), in 2013/2014. He shrugged off the many justifiable objections to this.

In fact, Conservatives in general have been largely supportive of “free trade” arrangements which outsource Canadian industries. They see nothing wrong in engaging in a rigged game with a country that can undercut Canadian workers and companies.

4. Erin O’Toole Then V.S. Now

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/2/17/erin-otoole-7/

Since first getting elected as an MP, O’Toole was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. O’Toole repeatedly hyped up how Canada would benefit from FIPA, and how the concerns were unwarranted. His recent opposition to China appears to be politically motivated, not based on ideology or morality.

5. Federal Cabinet Abstains In Vote

The vote was 266-0, and sold as “unanimous” to the public. However, that’s misleading, considering that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet all abstained from voting. Was this done to at least make working with China possible, while pretending to object?

Considering that everyone else voted to declare this a genocide, a predicted election would be interesting. Discussions around foreign relations could get awkward and strained.

What really happens now, anyway? Other than some words on paper, what will actually be accomplished? Will the Chinese Government suddenly realize the error of its ways? Will these camps suddenly be shut down?

6. Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

It was addressed a week ago that Canada, and dozens of other nations signed the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This seemed (at least in part), to be a shot a China, given it held 2 Canadians prisoner, and was abusing Muslim minorities on a massive scale.

While this is fine in principle, the elephant in the room is that Canada has been under varying levels of martial law over the last year. Using the false of pretense of a health emergency, politicians of all parties have supported suspending indefinitely the basic rights of citizens.

Going abroad to seek human organs should be criminalized (Bill S-240), but forcing quarantine on healthy people, and medical experimentation locally is very hypocritical.

7. Support Genocide Via Population Replacement

The Canadian Government grandstands about how morally superior it is to China. Even so, successive Administrations have engaged in the practice of population replacement, to eliminate the “old stock”, or at least, dilute their numbers. While it’s certainly not exclusively Chinese, they are in the top 3 source countries, year after year.

Not only are the people replaced, but the culture, history and traditions go as well. This is supported by the United Nations. A “Canadian” identity is substituted for a “multicultural” one. This inevitably leads to balkanization and enclaves, as similar people band together.

In most countries, this would be considered genocide. In Canada, and other Western nations, it’s diversity, and only racists question the agenda.

These symbolic actions against China ring hollow when considered against other things that go on.

8. Canada-China Business Council

There is Ambassador Dominic Barton, featured prominently.
Who else runs the group?

  • Paul Desmarais Sr. — former head of Power Corp (deceased)
  • Andre Desmarais — son-in-law of Jean Chretien
  • Oliver Desmarais — Vice President of Power Corp
  • Sam Boutziouvis — VP (Government Relations) of SNC Lavalin
  • Morgan Elliott — VP (Government Affairs) of Huawei
  • Tim McGuire — Executive VP, China Construction Bank
  • Martin Cauchon — was in Jean Chretien’s Cabinet
  • James Moore — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
  • Stockwell Day — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
  • Scott Brison — was in Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet

Sure, Canadian politicians will grandstand to show how righteous they are with regards to China. But will any of this stop them from doing business with them? That seems highly unlikely. Morals are morals, but money is money.

In fact, take a look at the CCBC website. There isn’t a single mention of genocide by the Chinese listed anywhere.

While there is talk locally of boycotting the 2022 Beijing Olympics, that is pretty minor in the scheme of things. It is a single event.

Posted on

The Other Provincial Health Acts Written By WHO-IHR

Welcome to the second part of the Provincial Health Acts of Canada. As you will see, elements of the 2005 Quarantine Act are written into them.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf
CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on Provincial Health Acts

(QC) http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/S-2.2
(NB) http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc/cs/P-22.4//20210220
(NS) https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/health%20protection.pdf
(NL) https://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/statutes/p37-3.htm
(PEI) Prince Edward Island Public Health Act
(YK) https://legislation.yukon.ca/acts/puhesa.pdf

3. Quebec Public Health Act

5. Public health actions must be directed at protecting, maintaining or enhancing the health status and well-being of the general population and shall not focus on individuals except insofar as such actions are taken for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals.
.
6. This Act is binding on the Government, on government departments and on bodies that are mandataries of the State.

CHAPTER IX
COMPULSORY TREATMENT AND PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES FOR CERTAIN CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS
DIVISION I
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS AND COMPULSORY TREATMENT

83. The Minister may, by regulation, draw up a list of the contagious diseases or infections for which any person affected is obligated to submit to the medical treatments required to prevent contagion.
.
The list may include only contagious diseases or infections that are medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population and for which an effective treatment that would put an end to the contagion is available.
2001, c. 60, s. 83.

84. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who observes that a person is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies must take, without delay, the required measures to ensure that the person receives the care required by his or her condition, or direct the person to a health and social services institution able to provide such treatments.
2001, c. 60, s. 84; 2020, c. 6, s. 25.

85. In the case of certain diseases or infections identified in the regulation, any health or social services institution having the necessary resources must admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of those diseases or infections. If the institution does not have the necessary resources, it must direct the person to an institution able to provide the required services.
2001, c. 60, s. 85.

86. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who becomes aware that a person who is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies is refusing or neglecting to submit to an examination must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
Such a notice must also be given by any such professional who observes that a person is refusing or neglecting to submit to the required medical treatment or has discontinued a treatment that must be completed to prevent contagion or a recurrence of contagion.
2001, c. 60, s. 86; 2020, c. 6, s. 26.

87. Any public health director who receives a notice under section 86 must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to be examined or to submit to the appropriate treatment, the public health director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to submit to such examination or treatment.
2001, c. 60, s. 87.

88. A judge of the Court of Québec or of the municipal courts of the cities of Montréal, Laval or Québec having jurisdiction in the locality where the person is to be found may, if the judge believes on reasonable grounds that the protection of the health of the population so warrants, order the person to submit to an examination and receive the required medical treatment.
.
In addition, the judge may, if the judge believes on serious grounds that the person will refuse to submit to the examination or to receive the treatment, order that the person be taken to an institution maintained by a health or social services institution for examination and treatment. The provisions of section 108 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
2001, c. 60, s. 88.

DIVISION II
COMPULSORY PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES
.
89. The Minister may, for certain contagious diseases or infections medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population, make a regulation setting out prophylactic measures to be complied with by a person suffering or likely to be suffering from such a disease or infection, as well as by any person having been in contact with that person.
.
Isolation, for a maximum period of 30 days, may form part of the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation of the Minister.
.
The regulation shall prescribe the circumstances and conditions in which specific prophylactic measures are to be complied with to prevent contagion. It may also require certain health or social services institutions to admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of the contagious diseases or infections to which this section applies, as well as any person who has been in contact with that person.
2001, c. 60, s. 89.

90. Any health professional who observes that a person is omitting, neglecting or refusing to comply with the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation made under section 89 must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
The director must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to comply with the necessary prophylactic measures, the director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to do so.
The provisions of section 88 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
The director may also, in the case of an emergency, use the powers conferred by section 103, and sections 108 and 109 apply to such a situation.
2001, c. 60, s. 90.

91. Despite any decision of the Court ordering the isolation of a person, isolation must cease as soon as the attending physician, after consulting the appropriate public health director, issues a certificate to the effect that the risk of contagion no longer exists.

Good old Quebec, where doctors can have you forcibly detained and “treated” based on the vague suspicion that you may have a communicable illness. And of course, the Court can have you locked up and isolated for 30 days at a time based on these suspicions.

4. New Brunswick Public Health Act

Duty to report contacts
2002, c.23, s.10; 2017, c.42, s.35
31A medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse shall, in accordance with the regulations, report the person’s contacts related to a notifiable disease or notifiable event prescribed by regulation to a medical officer of health or person designated by the Minister, if the medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse
(a) provides professional services to a person who has a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or has suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation, or
(b) provided professional services to a deceased person before that person’s death and that person had a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or had suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation.
2002, c.23, s.10; 2007, c.63, s.10; 2011, c.26, s.4; 2017, c.42, s.36

Duty to report refusal or neglect of treatment
2017, c.42, s.37
32A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner shall report to a medical officer of health, in accordance with the regulations, if a person who is under the care and treatment of the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner in respect of a Group I notifiable disease refuses or neglects to continue the treatment in a manner and to a degree satisfactory to the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner, as the case may be.
2017, c.42, s.38

Order respecting notifiable disease
2017, c.42, s.39
33(1)Subject to subsection (2), a medical officer of health by a written order may require a person to take or refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a notifiable disease.
.
33(2)A medical officer of health may make an order under this section if he or she believes on reasonable grounds,
(a) that a notifiable disease exists or may exist in a health region,
(b) that the notifiable disease presents a risk to the health of persons in the health region, and
(c) that the requirements specified in the order are necessary to prevent, decrease or eliminate the risk to health presented by the notifiable disease.

33(3)In an order under this section, a medical officer of health may specify the time or times when or the period or periods of time within which the person to whom the order is directed must comply with the order.

33(4)An order under this section may include, but is not limited to,
(a) requiring any person that the order states has or may have a notifiable disease or is or may be infected with an agent of a notifiable disease to isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons,
.
(b) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner and to deliver to the medical officer of health a report by the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner as to whether or not the person has a notifiable disease or is infected with an agent of a notifiable disease,
(c) requiring the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a disease that is a notifiable disease to place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner without delay, and
.
(d) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

This is the Public Health Act of New Brunswick.

5. Nova Scotia Health Protection Act

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
Powers respecting communicable diseases
32 (1) Where a medical officer is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the public health; and
(c) the requirements specified in the order are necessary in order to decrease or eliminate the risk to the public health presented by the communicable disease, the medical officer may by written order require a person to take or to refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a communicable disease

32 (3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an order
made under this Section may
(a) require the owner or occupier of premises to close the premises or a part of the premises or to restrict access to the premises;
(b) require the displaying of signage on premises to give notice of an order requiring the closing of the premises;
(c) require any person that the order states has been exposed or may have been exposed to a communicable disease to quarantine himself or herself from other persons;
(d) require any person who has a communicable disease or is infected with an agent of a communicable disease to isolate himself or herself from other persons;
(e) require the cleaning or disinfecting, or both, of the premises or any thing specified in the order;
(f) require the destruction of any matter or thing specified in the order;
(g) require the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer and to deliver to the medical officer a report by the physician as to whether or not the person has a communicable disease or is or is not infected with an agent of a communicable disease;
(h) require the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a communicable disease to place himself or herself forthwith under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer;
(i) require the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

Court may ensure compliance
38 (1) Where, upon application by a medical officer, a judge of the provincial court is satisfied that
(a) a person has failed to comply with an order by a medical officer made under to Section 32 that
(i) the person quarantine himself or herself from other persons,
(ii) the person isolate himself or herself from other persons,
(iii) the person submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer,
(iv) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to the
medical officer, or
(v) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection,
the judge may order that the person who has failed to comply with the order of the medical officer
(b) be taken into custody and be admitted to and detained in a quarantine facility named in the order;
(c) be taken into custody and be admitted to, detained and treated in an isolation facility named in the order;
(d) be examined by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer to ascertain whether or not the person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease; or
(e) where found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease, be treated for the disease.
(2) Where an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection (1) is to be carried out by a physician or other health professional, the failure of the person subject to such an order to consent does not constitute an assault or battery against that person by the physician or other health professional should the order be carried out.
(3) A physician or other health professional carrying out an order pursuant to subsection (1) may obtain such assistance from a peace officer or other person as the physician or health professional reasonably believes is necessary.
(4) A judge shall not name an isolation facility or quarantine facility in an order under this Section unless the judge is satisfied that the isolation facility or quarantine facility is able to provide detention, care and treatment as required for the person who is the subject of the order. 2004, c. 4, s. 38.

Authority to apprehend and isolate or quarantine
39 (1) An order made under Section 38 is authority for any person to
(a) locate and apprehend the person who is the subject of the order; and
(b) deliver the person who is the subject of the order to the isolation facility or quarantine facility named in the order or to a physician for examination.
(2) An order made under Section 38 may be directed to a police force that has jurisdiction in the area where the person who is the subject of the order may be located, and the police force shall do all things reasonably able to be done to locate, apprehend and deliver the person to an isolation or quarantine facility in the jurisdiction where the person was apprehended or to an isolation or quarantine facility specified in the order.
(3) A person who apprehends a person who is the subject of an order pursuant to subsection (2) shall promptly
(a) inform the person of the reasons for the apprehension and of the person’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay; and
(b) tell the person where the person is being taken.
(4) An order made under clause 38(1)(c) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the isolation facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person and to treat the person for the communicable disease in accordance with generally accepted medical practice for a period of not more than four months from and including the day that the order was issued.
(5) An order made under clause 38(1)(b) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the quarantine facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person for the incubation period of the communicable disease as determined by the judge.

Nova Scotia, like the others, can force a person to submit to a “medical examination” and do whatever is demanded of the health care provider

6. Newfoundland Public Health

Communicable disease orders
32. (1) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order under this section where he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the health of the population; and
(c) the order is necessary to prevent, eliminate, remedy, or mitigate the risk to the health of the population.
(2) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order in respect of a person who has or may have a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent and the order may do one or more of the following:
(a) require the person to submit to an examination by a specified health care professional at a specified health facility on or before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(b) require the person to isolate himself or herself from other persons, including in a specified health facility;
(c) require the person to conduct himself or herself in a manner that will not expose other persons to infection or to take other precautions to prevent or limit the direct or indirect transmission of the communicable disease or infectious agent to those who are susceptible to the communicable disease or infectious agent or who may spread the communicable disease or infectious agent to others;
(d) prohibit or restrict the person from attending a school, a place of employment or other public premises or from using a public conveyance;
(e) prohibit or restrict the person from engaging in his or her occupation or another specified occupation or type of occupation;
(f) prohibit or restrict the person from leaving or entering a specified premises;
(g) require the person to avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person, animal or thing;
(h) require the person to be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(i) require a person to provide information, records or other documents relevant to the person’s possible infection to a specified person;
(j) require a person to provide samples of the person’s clothing or possessions to a specified person;
(k) require a person to destroy contaminated clothing or possessions;
(l) require a person to provide specimens previously collected from the person to a specified person;
(m) where a regional medical officer of health has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent, require the person to undergo treatment specified in the order or by a specified health care professional, including attending a specified health facility, where there is no other reasonable method available to mitigate the risks of the infection;
(n) require a person to disclose the identity and location of the persons with whom the person may have had contact or whom the person may have exposed to the communicable disease or infectious agent; or
(o) require the person to take, or prohibit the person from taking, an action prescribed in the regulations.

Apprehension orders and treatment orders generally
.
37. (1) A regional medical officer of health or a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order may apply to the Supreme Court to vary, terminate or suspend the order.
(2) Where the application is made by a regional medical officer of health, the variation, termination or suspension of an apprehension order or treatment order may be issued on an application made under subsection (1) without notice and in the absence of the person subject to the order.
(3) Where the application is made by the person subject to the order, the apprehension order or treatment order shall not be varied, terminated or suspended unless the regional medical officer of health has been served with the application made under subsection (1).
(4) An apprehension order and a treatment order shall specify the health facility where the person subject to the order shall be detained, isolated, quarantined, examined and treated.
(5) Notwithstanding another provision of this Act, a judge shall not specify a health facility in an apprehension order or treatment order unless he or she is satisfied that the health facility is able to provide for the detainment, isolation, quarantine, examination or treatment as required in the order.
(6) Where an apprehension order or treatment order has been made, the person in charge of the health facility specified in the order shall ensure that
(a) the person subject to an apprehension order is detained, isolated or quarantined in accordance with the order; and
(b) the person subject to a treatment order is examined and treated in accordance with the order.
(7) The person in charge of the health facility specified in an apprehension order or treatment order shall immediately report to the regional medical officer of health regarding
(a) the results of the examination and treatment of the person subject to the order;
(b) the health status of the person subject to the order; and
(c) any change in the diagnosis or health status of the person subject to the order.
(8) A regional medical officer of health shall monitor the treatment and condition of a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order and shall issue a certificate authorizing the release and discharge of the person immediately where he or she is of the opinion that
(a) the person is no longer infectious with a communicable disease; and
(b) discharging the person would not present a serious risk to the health of the population.
(9) A regional medical officer of health shall file a certificate issued under subsection (8) with the court that issued the apprehension order or treatment order.
(10) Notwithstanding any term or condition of an apprehension order or treatment order, the order is terminated immediately upon the issuance of a certificate under subsection (8) or the termination of the order under subsection 46(5).

Newfoundland & Labrador, like the other Provinces, allows for “medical officers” to order people detained and subjected to treatment, based on suspicions. The text is almost identical to the others.

7. Prince Edward Island Public Health

42. Order of court to detain, examine or treat a person
(1) The Chief Public Health Officer may make an application to the court for an order under this section where a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer in respect of a communicable disease specified in the regulations that
(a) the person isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons;
(b) the person submit to an examination by a medical practitioner;
(c) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner;
(d) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection; and
Public Health Act
.
PART II — PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
Section 42
ct Updated June 12, 2018 Page 25
(e) the person provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health Officer.
Court order
(2) Where the court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer under section 39 or 40, the court may order, with respect to the person named in the order, any or all of the following:
(a) that the person be taken into custody and admitted to and detained in a health facility named in the order;
(b) that the person be examined by a medical practitioner to ascertain whether or not a person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations;
(c) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, be treated for the disease;
(d) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health
Officer.
Ex parte application
(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made ex parte and where so made the court may
make an interim order under subsection (2).

43. Designation of medical practitioner to have responsibility for detained person
The administrator or person in charge of a health facility shall designate a medical practitioner to have responsibility for a person named in an order issued under section 42 who is delivered to a health facility. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.43.
.
44. Medical practitioner to report respecting detained person The medical practitioner responsible for a person named in an order made under section 42 shall report in respect of the treatment and the condition of the person to the Chief Public Health Officer in the manner, at the times and with the information specified by the Chief
Public Health Officer. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.44.
.
45. Extension of period of detention
Where upon application of the Chief Public Health Officer the court is satisfied
(a) that the person continues to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations; and
(b) that the discharge of the person from the health facility would present a significant risk to the health of the public, the court may by order extend the period of detention for not more than three months, and upon further applications by the Chief Public Health Officer, the court may extend the period of detention and treatment for further periods, each of which shall not be for more than three months. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.45.

Prince Edward Island allows Courts to detain people for up to 3 months at a time, and all under the guise of public health. Not that it will ever be abused for political reasons.

8. Medical Tyranny As “Public Health”

The content of these carious Provincial Health Acts overlaps considerably. These unelected medical officers are able to detain people, close businesses, and suspend basic liberties, all under the pretense of public safety.

In any other context, this would be considered dictatorial. But this gets a pass from the mainstream media. Wonder why they don’t address it.

Many Other Periodicals Receiving Government Subsidies
Other Subsidies Propping Up Canadian Media
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Aberdeen Publishing Sells Out, Takes Subsidies
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies

Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Media Subsidies To Combat Online Misinformation

Posted on

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

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

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

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface

Video Player

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

Video Player

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

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

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

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

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

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

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