Press Forward: Anti-White “Independent” Media Controlled And Funded By The Establishment

This is a media group called Press Forward. While it’s nice to see independent media covering events in Canada, even if we may ideologically disagree, this is not the case here. While presenting itself as a group of indy/alt media outlets, this is anything but.

Press Forward has a list of criteria for membership in their group. Most raise no eyebrows, and are in fact very reasonable. However, #8 catches attention for all the wrong reasons.

8. Members must have a publicly posted diversity, equity and inclusion policy in place and be willing to report publicly on the composition of their organization. If you do not have a policy or self-reporting process yet, Press Forward can provide a template and assistance.

While other requirements such as transparency, ethics policies, privacy policies, and trying to generate revenue are sensible, this last one is not. This isn’t a call to make decisions purely on merit, and to ignore traits like race, gender, age, or nationality. On the contrary, it’s a call to make decisions BASED ON those traits.

The site does go on to provide a template for their diversity, equity and inclusion policy. And wow, it’s quite a doozy.

SAMPLE DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION POLICY
We recognize that systemic discrimination based on age, class, cultural and/or linguistic background, ability, economic status, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation have contributed to an environment where the voices of many people in Canada aren’t uplifted. We are committed to reporting on stories that reflect the country’s diversity, as well as hiring and promoting journalists from a variety of underrepresented backgrounds.
.
Diversity: PUBLICATION will integrate equity principles into its decision-making processes. Equity and diversity will inform short-, mid- and long-term editorial planning, source cultivation, editing practices, art direction, etc. Our reporting sheds light on systemic barriers and historic challenges and will reference these issues when contextualizing breaking news.
.
Inclusiveness: As an employer, PUBLICATION will foster a welcoming, barrier-free environment, and build and nurture relationships with writers, editors, photographers and illustrators, as well as other consultants, from a variety of underrepresented groups.
.
Leadership: PUBLICATION’s leadership will strive to ensure it reflects the full diversity of Canada. This includes senior leadership, staff, freelancers, interns and volunteers, as well as featured sources, guests, speakers, etc.
.
Accountability: PUBLICATION will collect on the demographic makeup of the organization and will make a concerted effort to sensitively survey employees, freelancers and audiences on equity and diversity issues. PUBLICATION will then relay this information to the public via regular equity reports.

This is actually the template provided. To be part of Press Forward, it’s necessary to have a policy such as this, which comes across as anti-white. When they talk about factoring diversity into the hiring practices and stories covered, it means non white.

When they say organizations should reflect the full diversity of Canada, it means whites should be replaced. It also means that men, especially white men, are a thing of the past.

Truly independent media outlets don’t need to report on their racial or gender makeup. They don’t need to report the sexual habits of their members. Yet, Press Forward does. Strange, in a country that has all kinds of laws to enshrine equal rights, apparently minorities are oppressed.

This isn’t the hallmark of a collective of indy authors. This comes across as someone, like a Government, trying to implement social policy in how media outlets are composed, and what is written.

Now, about the groups themselves: what are the media outlets that are part of this organization? Where are they located?

  • Canada’s National Observer (Observer Media Group)
  • La Converse
  • The Coast Halifax Weekly
  • Committee Trawler (Halifax)
  • The Discourse
  • The Independent (Newfoundland & Labrador)
  • The Local (Toronto)
  • The Narwhal
  • New Canadian Media
  • Oakville News
  • The Sprawl (Calgary)
  • Sun Peaks Independent News
  • The Tyee
  • Village Media
  • West End Phoenix

And who is running Press Forward?

  • Emma Gilchrist, Chair, Editor-in-Chief, The Narwhal
  • Stacy Lee Kong, Vice-Chair, Deputy Editor, West End Phoenix
  • Jeremy Klaszus, Editor in Chief, The Sprawl
  • Brent Jolly, National News Media Council
  • Lela Savić, La Converse, Discourse Media
  • Karyn Pugliese, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University
  • Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights

Narwhal is Registered Journalism Organization with the Canada Revenue Agency. At the time of writing this, there are only 3, although over a hundred have applied. This means that Narwhal is entitled to special tax breaks most companies wouldn’t be able to get.

A quick search shows a number of recent grants by the Federal Government. Remember, Governments typically don’t hand out money to groups which are a potential threat. Would they give money to media outlets that will hold their feet to the fire?

MEDIA OUTLET DATE AMOUNT
Discourse Media Jul. 17, 2018 $1,520
Discourse Media Apr. 1, 2020 $161,795
Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
Journalists for Human Rights Oct. 11, 2019 $11,764,838
Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2018 $42,555
New Canadian Media May 1, 2019 $66,517
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2019 $66,800
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $9,471
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $69,300
New Canadian Media May 1, 2020 $31,900
New Canadian Media Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2020 $253,594
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2021 $100,000
Sprawl Media Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $30,258
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Jun. 5, 2020 $3,504
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $63,452
The Tyee Apr. 1, 2020 $360,469
Village Media Inc. Jul. 25, 2016 $88,000
Village Media Inc. May 1, 2018 $156,000
Village Media Inc. May 18, 2018 $140,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $190,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $260,000
West End Phoenix Apr. 1, 2020 $140,134

Canadians object to their money being spent on things they consider wasteful. Fair enough. But here, money is being given to organizations that put diversity above talent and results. Journalists are so restricted that they can get their work subsidized by the public.

This isn’t all of them of course. Still, several have received substantial amounts of money from Ottawa to promote their work. Press Forward is supported (financed in part) by the Trottier Family Foundation Foundation. More on them soon enough.

The Misinformation Project provides Canadian journalists and journalism students with digital investigation and media literacy training in online misinformation. The program is a continuation of JHR’s Combating Misinformation Project, which was funded in part by the Government of Canada in 2020. During this six month program, sixteen professional journalists will hold online training sessions for Canadian news organizations. These sessions cover the information landscape, responsible reporting and digital verification with the goal of helping participants integrate the skills into their daily reporting.
.
The Misinformation Project is funded by the McConnell Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation and the Rossy Family Foundation.
.
JHR partnered with First Draft News, a global leader in misinformation research and training, to implement the project.

JHR, Journalists for Human Rights, is running the “Misinformation Project“, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada. It gets additional funding from the Trottier Family Foundation, the McConnell Foundation, and the Rossy Family Foundation. Misinformation, of course, are things that contradict the official narrative.

What does this have to do with Press Forward? Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights, is on their Board of Directors.

In this earlier piece, it was laid out how various groups trying to “fight misinformation” were actually run by political operatives, and they were getting public money. JHR is led by Peter Donolo, longtime Liberal Party operative. He has been a handler for Jean Chretien, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau. This corruption crosses all parties.

JHR also runs another group called “Disinfowatch“, in conjunction with the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy.

Of course, this isn’t all the money that gets spent on this. Here are some more grants courtesy of the taxpayers. And you think it was going towards roads and schools.

In March 2020, Ryerson University announced that it would be conducting research into “misinformation”, how it spreads, and how to contain it. This would be funded by the Canadian Government. Strangely, this would be run out of the business school, and not the journalism school.

Karyn S. Pugliese, the Director at Press Forward, has been a reporter on CBC and CTV, and is a former reporter at Parliament Hill. An interesting addition to this group.

The Narwhal, which gets special tax breaks because of its status with the Canada Revenue Agency, is also a member of the organization Covering Climate Now. There are many partners in the group, including mainstream names.

CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.

By their own admission, CCNow wants to insert the climate change issue into everything, and use that to shift the culture. This isn’t media, it’s indoctrination. Just a thought, but this partnership may be why the CRA is so willing to grant the RJO status to Narwhal. One of their Directors is Alex Himelfarb, a former Privy Council Clerk.

Another Director is a member of the National News Media Council. They describe themselves as a “self-regulatory ethics body for the news media industry in Canada”. Now there’s nothing wrong with having different views, but this seems pretty inconsistent for Press Forward, which claims to be pushing independent journalism.

The Sprawl, based in Alberta, seems to be about the closest thing to independent. It is willing to take submissions from a broad group of people. However, it bleats the “diversity” drum to such a degree that everything else seems secondary. A quick look through recent articles show an incredibly leftwing streak.

This is hardly a complete rundown, however, it’s difficult to consider this group “independent” in any way, considering some of the people running it.

Instead of calling for stories based on talent, hard work, or creativity, all of this takes a backseat to “diversity and inclusion”. It seems done to deliberately drive up sentiments about being persecuted or taken advantage of. And we all know what the goal is.

It also has to be said, none of these outlets ask critical questions about the “pandemic” that has been going on for the last 18 months or so. Instead, the official narratives get promoted in their work. Perhaps that’s another reason for the subsidies.

(1) https://pressforward.ca/
(2) https://pressforward.ca/about-us/
(3) https://archive.is/YpLNi
(4) https://archive.is/YQYFh
(5) https://pressforward.ca/sample-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-policy/
(6) https://pressforward.ca/team/
(7) https://pressforward.ca/membership/
(8) https://pressforward.ca/membership-criteria-2/
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/other-organizations-that-issue-donation-receipts-qualified-donees/other-qualified-donees-listings/list-registered-journalism-organizations.html
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) https://jhr.ca/jhrs-misinformation-project
(12) https://archive.is/9Ed4r
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(15) https://www.ryerson.ca/news-events/news/2020/03/ryersons-social-media-lab-tackles-misinformation-amid-pandemic/
(16) https://thenarwhal.ca/about-us/
() https://coveringclimatenow.org/about/
(17) https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/
(18) https://thenarwhal.ca/alex-himelfarb
(19) https://www.mediacouncil.ca/
(20) https://www.sprawlalberta.com/policies

Bit Of History: University Of Toronto, Public Health, Funded With Rockefeller Money

[Reprinted without permission]

The Rockefeller Foundation’s contributions to the University of Toronto have been an important part of its global philanthropic agenda in support of health, food, employment, cities, energy and innovation over the past century.

Established in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation has disbursed more than US$17 billion in today’s dollars. Among its achievements, the foundation played a role in the founding of the field of public health, developed vaccines for diseases such as yellow fever and malaria, and led a global transformation of agriculture that has saved millions of lives.

Created by American industrialist John D. Rockefeller, the foundation is also a major supporter of educational institutions. It established the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and schools of public health at both Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. It became a major benefactor of the University of Toronto following the discovery of insulin in 1921 by Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

The following year, the foundation donated several million dollars to U of T for a chair of surgery and to fund construction of anatomy and pathology labs. The foundation also helped establish the School of Hygiene, which housed the Departments of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Public Health Nursing, Epidemiology and Biometrics, and Physical Hygiene, as well as a Division of Industrial Hygiene. It incorporated the existing Connaught Laboratories, then a global leader in the development and manufacture of vaccines.

In 1933, further contributions helped create the School of Nursing, transforming the program at U of T from a diploma course for existing nurses into a fully-fledged bachelor’s degree program in a new departmental building at Queen’s Park Crescent. Other Rockefeller gifts helped found programs in Chinese Studies in 1934, and the Department of Slavic Studies in 1949.

The foundation’s leadership in global philanthropy for more than a century has had a tremendous impact. Its support for education and research at U of T has played a major role in building our impressive global legacy.

Certainly not the only major donor. However, no one else has given anywhere close to $17 billion places like the University of Toronto (adjusted for inflation). Check out other major names. Correction: an earlier interpretation of the announcement thought it was $17B exclusively to this school.

Kind of makes one wonder who financed the various outlets at the school, such as the Centre for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the WHO Collaboration Centre.

One notable set of donors are William (Bill) Graham and Catherin Graham. Bill is a former Defense Minister of Canada, former Foreign Affairs Minister, and former Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In total, they have contributed from $10.4 million.

This is quite the rabbit hole, but a few points to consider:

While this may be coincidental, the U.S. Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. This led to the latest iteration of debt based currency, and debt slavery in that country.

The Rockefeller Foundation recently announced a $13.5 million grant, mostly for the U.S., to be spent on combatting misinformation.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is listed as being founded by Rockefeller. From their own website: “The Rockefeller Foundation invented an international health system virtually overnight in 1914, simultaneously launching a pilot project throughout Central America and the British Caribbean to treat hookworm disease and lay the foundations of permanent departments of health under the auspices of its International Health Board.”

The LSHTM, much like Imperial College London, and the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, receive heavy financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • UNICEF

The Vaccine Confidence Project, headed by Heidi Larson, is run by the LSHTM. Unsurprisingly, pharma companies are the biggest donors. After all, VCP is generating newer and larger markets for their products.

Johns Hopkins University has been running pandemic “scenarios” for many years. Makes one wonder how much of any of this is actually real.

In 2016, the ID2020 group was started. Among its initial partners are the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, and GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance.

Rockefeller founded (along with others), the Climate Bonds Initiative. And this is hardly the only organization. Those carbon taxes people hate paying are going to make a limited number of people very rich.

And as mentioned before, UofT is structured as a charity.

Some interesting bits of information that most people probably never think about.

(1) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(2) https://archive.is/8r2eH
(3) Wayback Machine
(4) https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-opens-groundbreaking-centre-strengthen-vaccine-confidence-through-collaboration
(5) https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/who-collaborating-centre-on-health-promotion/
(6) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/index.html
(7) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/index.html
(8) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html
(9) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010.pdf
(11) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(12) https://id2020.org/alliance
(13) https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/rockefeller-foundation-parasitism-and-peripheral-origins-global-health
(14) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(15) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(19) https://www.climatebonds.net/about/funders

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX


From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie


From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie


Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine


An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.

(1) https://www.sfgmc.org/
(2) https://www.sfgmc.org/press-releases-1/2021/7/9/statement-from-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-july-9-2021
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfxtSbh6Do

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

Bit Of History: WHO Wrote Paper On “Implied Consent” For Vaccinations In 2014

Several years ago, the World Health Organization published a paper on various levels of “consent” required for vaccinating children. It also introduces the idea of “implied consent for children”. Apparently, just going to school after a notice has been given will suffice.

Approaches to obtain informed consent:

  • 1. Written consent
  • 2. Verbal consent
  • 3. Implied consent

It’s the third type that is the most nefarious.

3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.

Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.

Based on concepts of vaccines as a public good, or on public-health goals of disease elimination and outbreak control, some countries identify one or more vaccines as mandatory in law, or in their policies. Vaccination may, for example, be made a condition for entry into preschool or primary school, or to enable access to welfare benefits. Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required. If the mandatory nature of vaccination is based on policy, or other forms of soft law, informed consent needs to be obtained as for any other vaccines. Some countries allow individuals to express non-consent (opt-out) and obtain an exemption for mandatory vaccines. This may come with certain conditions, like barring unvaccinated children from attending school during disease outbreaks

Have to cringe at how getting informed consent, or having the parents involved, is seen as an inconvenience. Then again, many concerned parents would put a stop to such things.

(1) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(2) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(3) https://www.sott.net/article/424625-WHO-now-says-your-childs-presence-in-school-counts-as-informed-consent-for-vaccination-parental-presence-not-required