TSCE #14(E): Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

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

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

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

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

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

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

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

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

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

Many Other Periodicals Receiving The “Pandemic Bucks” In Order To Push The Narrative

The Voice of Pelham is one of many dozens of media outlets which receives taxpayer subsidies as “Covid relief”. A reasonable person may wonder to what degree that impacts the content they cover.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

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

2. Canadian Media Is Heavily Subsidized

This rabbit hole goes much deeper than Aberdeen Publishing, or Postmedia. Nearly all media in Canada, whether it is mainstream, alternvative, or just an infrequent publisher, is receiving financial support. And this doesn’t even factor into the ad space that is bought up. Can it be any wonder that they aren’t too critical of the official narratives?

https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/

3. Records Of More Periodical Subsidies

NAME YEAR AMOUNT
The 40-Mile County Commentator Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $112,834
The 40-Mile County Commentator Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $28,209
Alaska Highway News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $73,353
Assiniboia Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $21,898
The Battlefords Regional News-Optimist Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $68,449
Bridge River Liollet News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $19,190
Bridge River Liollet News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Burnaby Now Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $196,439
Carlyle Observor Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $16,934
Dawson Creek Mirror Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $58,958
Delta Optimist Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $183,342
East Central Recorder Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,145
Estevan Mercury Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $50,362
Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $30,438
Maple Creek & Southwest Advance Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,610
Maple Creek News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $29,897
Maple Creek News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,474
Midweek Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $41,999
New Westminister Record Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $196,204
North Shore News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $355,882
Orinha Media Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $43,440
Pique Newsmagazine Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $272,821
Post City Magazines Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $504,262
Powell River Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $48,670
Powell River Peak Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $12,168
Prairie Post East Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $63,302
Prairie Post East Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $21,430
Richmond News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $204,988
The Shaunavon Standard Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,625
The Shaunavon Standard Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Squamish Chief Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $89,205
The Sunny South News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $75,565
The Sunny South News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,891
The Taber Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $33,262
The Taber Times Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $8,316
Thompson Citizen Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $41,167
Tri-City News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $246,952
Unity-Wilkie Press Herald Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $30,048
Unity-Wilkie Press Herald Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $7,512
Vancouver Courier Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $317,825
The Vauxhall Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $8,261
The Vauxhall Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Virden Empire-Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $36,821
Virden Empire-Advance Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $9,205
The Voice Of Pelham Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $18,962
Western Investor Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $31,001
Westlock News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $56,174
Westlock News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,044
Westwind Weekly News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $4,532
Westwind Weekly News Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $5,000
Weyburn Review Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $36,741
Weyburn Review Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $9,185
Weyburn This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $28,686
Yorkton This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $56,174
Yorkton This Week Apr. 1, 2020 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,044

Note: There are organizations that received funding during this time that WEREN’T specifically labelled as Covid funding. That said, if they had any “understanding” when receiving any grants, it would apply to all of them.

This isn’t all of the organizations getting money. However, search HERE to see if your local paper is getting money as well.

There are also relatively few owners controlling most of the above outlets, such as:

  • Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership
  • LMP Publication Limited Partnership
  • Prairie Newspaper Group Limited
  • Whistler Publishing Limited Partnership

4. Local Journalism Initiative

NAME YEAR AMOUNT
Association De La Press Francophone Jun. 10, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $600,000
Canadian Association Of Community TV Users And Stations May 7, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,200,000
Canadian News Media Association May 1, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $14,400,000
Community Radio Fund Of Canada Inc. Apr. 29, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $2,000,000
National Ethnic Press And Media Council Of Canada Jun. 4, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $1,200,000
Quebec Community Newspapers Association Jun. 28, 2019 – Mar. 31, 2021 $600,000

Even before this “pandemic” hit, Ottawa was handing out subsidies. These grants are for the Local Journalism Initiative. Not sure why we need to fund the National Ethnic Press and Media Council. Isn’t that the opposite of local?

5. Canadians Get Raw Deal Here

What does all this mean? It means that the vast majority of media in Canada, even so-called “independents” are being financially propped up by Ottawa. Or rather, it means that they are supported by taxes and debt that the public is incurring.

It must be noted, that in addition to direct grants, Governments further use public money to purchase ads, to reinforce these claims. The result is a near monopoly in the media. Considering the many unanswered questions, this seems particularly dangerous.

Does any of this help Canadians? Does having a press unable or unwilling to address difficult questions benefit society in any way? Certainly not. For real journalism, check out this page.

CV #62(D): Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

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

3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
.
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
.
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
.
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
.
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
.
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
.
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
.
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
.
45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
.
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
.
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
.
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
.
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
.
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
.
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
.
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

PART 6
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
.
Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
.
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
.
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
.
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
.
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
.
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
.
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Extension
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

CV #42(D): WEF/Davos “Great Reset”, “Green New Deal”, And “Stakeholder Capitalism” Are Euphemisms For Global Communism

The “Great Reset” was initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory, and vehemently denied. Now, that it’s out in the open, it’s necessary to restructure society. Pretty opportunistic isn’t it? Wasn’t this all about a virus before? Or is it about implementing an agenda that couldn’t be sold politically before?

Truth about politicians, CEOs, academics and activists colluding is still considered a conspiracy theory. Give it time, and the narrative will shift again. Now there will have been collusion, but it was necessary.

1. WEF Gaslighting Public On Issue Of Trust

The participants at the World Economic Forum keep talking about having to build trust between people. However, this is completely disingenuous, considering the deception and lies at the heart of the matter. Here are important topics, in no particular order.

CENTRAL BANKING
Central Banks Pushing For Digital Currency Implementation
Global Taxation Efforts And Programs Underway
1934 Bank Of Canada Act, Bank For International Settlements
Bank For International Settlements Pushing Green Bonds
Central Banks Network For Greening The Financial System
Usury Involved In Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM
Mark Carney, With U.N. Climate Action & Finance
Green New Deal Group Modelling After 2008 Bank Failure
Green Climate Fund, A GLOBAL Green New Deal
New Development Funds: Global Bait-And-Switch
NGOs Meddling In Carbon Tax Court Cases
Paris Accord, A Global Wealth Transfer Scheme

PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBYING
GAVI/Crestview Strategy Lobbying Ottawa
Motion M-132, Pharma Research For Canada And The World
Alberta Pharmaceutical Lobbying
Quebec Pharma Lobbying
Ontario Pharma Lobbying, Bill 160

LACK OF SCIENCE BEHIND PANDEMIC MEASURES
Pandemic Model Donors Have Conflict Of Interest
Virus Has Never Even Been Isolated
WHO Admits PCR Tests Are A Complete Fraud
WHO Admits Little Evidence Masks Work
Business Shut Downs Dependent On Corruption, Lobbying
Ottawa Lies About 2m “Social Distancing”
No Scientific Basis For Limiting Group Sizes
People Recover En Masse Without Vaccines

CENSORSHIP MEASURES
Social Media Collusion On “Pandemic” Narrative
Collusion To Promote Pro-Vaxx Narrative
Proposal To Introduce Laws Against “Misinformation”
Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Fact-Checking Organizations Run By Political Operatives

Speakers at Davos complain that there is far too little trust between people and their leaders. Perhaps addressing some of these issues openly and honestly would help alleviate that. Or how about addressing the next one?

2. Aleksandr Lukashenko Alleges IMF Bribe

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko publicly accused the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund), of offering a bribe of almost $1 billion U.S. Dollars if he would crash the economy, and impose masks and lockdowns nationwide. Is any of this true?

Before any real trust can be established, honesty is necessary. Is Lukashenko lying, or did the IMF and World Bank manufacture this collapse?

3. Rise Of The Trust Brokers (3rd Parties)

Supposedly, it’s now too difficult and complex for people to manage their own personal data. Hiring 3rd parties to do thinking and decision making may be a better option. Alternatively, an automated system, or artificial intelligence can be put in control instead.

Who’s going to ensure that these 3rd parties are who they claim, and will honour personal information? How will that work with some sort of AI system? Too many questions need answering.

4. Stake Holder Capitalism New Way Of Life

The video is too large to upload here. “Stakeholder Capitalism” is what they want to replace “Shareholder Capitalism”, which is property rights. In short, this agenda is to water down (if not abolish altogether), private property. It’s Communism by any other name.

Don’t worry. You’ll own nothing, have no privacy, and your life will never be better. That predictive programming video came out a few years ago.

That being said, some valid points are made, such as corruption, debt and currency. However, it’s never pointed out that central banking (aided by corrupt politicians), enables such debt slavery. A country’s currency should never be held hostage to foreign private interests.

5. Advancing A New Social Contract

A “Social Contract” is often referred to as agreements within societies. This can refer to the expectation that Governments will provide certain protections and benefits, and citizens will behave in certain ways. Considering the underlying dishonesty of Officials in this “pandemic”, how can they be trusted now?

Historical reference. A social contract is also a reference to then-Ontario Premier Bob Rae imposing certain cuts in the public sector, in order to avoid job losses.

6. Tackling The Inequality Virus

The Covid-19 “pandemic” has also provided to allow a wealth redistribution to take place. Under the guise of fighting racial and gender inequality, these people want to forcibly make things more equal. They quite openly talk about reshaping society.

Also, apparently the virus is racist, since it isn’t killing off whites nearly to the same degree as blacks. Go figure. Perhaps it’s not nearly as deadly when there is equality in society.

7. UN’s Guterres: Pandemic A “Dress Rehearsal”

This “pandemic” is a dress rehearsal for other challenges coming. Antonio Guterres seems almost giddy that this has provided political cover to implement an agenda which could never have been achieved otherwise. If this wasn’t planned out, then it is crass opportunism.

He also says that he plans to vaccinate everyone, saying it’s the key to reopening society.

Interestingly, he also talks about virus mutations, which would render any existing vaccines completely worthless. Considering that WHO recommends AGAINST virus isolation, how would one know they were vaccinating against the correct strain?

Guterres also talks about debt relief, but deliberately omits that most countries participate in private central banking (aided by corrupt politicians). This, above all else, leads to the endless debt slavery that all pay for. Interesting that he talks about environmentally “borrowing” from children and grandchildren, but he leaves out how central banks do much the same thing.

8. Central Banking Is Predatory Lending

Governments and central banks have injected $11 trillion into the global economy, slashed interest rates and purchased large-scale assets to prevent financial collapse due to COVID-19. What monetary and fiscal stabilization policies that have emerged during the crisis should be sustained and scaled up, and how should competition policy be designed in an era of increasing concentration?
.
Speakers: Raghuram G. Rajan, Geoff Cutmore, Alex Cobham, Rain Newton-Smith
.
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

The description on the video is misleading. Most countries operate private central banks, which means they are forced to borrow — at interest — in order to fund their needs. $11 trillion was generated out of nothing, but now it’s considered debt. As a consequence, “assets” can now be bought off with artificially created wealth.

They float a solution — allowing borrowing at low rates — but it doesn’t address the corrupt system itself. This is not surprising at this point. Politicians and media talking heads frequently address a symptom (the debt), but never the disease (the monetary system). This is intentional.

9. Bonnie Henry: Not Based On Science

A rare moment of honesty from BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry. Despite a Province-wide ban on gatherings, she admits that none of this is based on science. There’s just vague references to models, a tacit admission that models are not proof or science. Also see TCN TV Network, for more information.

10. 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 media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Who’s Pulling Erin O’Toole’s Strings?

So who is Erin O’Toole, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada? What does he believe, and what does he stand for? Turns out, the answers are pretty bad. The CPC is just a parody of an opposition party (6uild 6ack 6etter is now 6uild 6ack “stronger“).

1. Important Links

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1351658366406438914
https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
O’Toole Supports Even More Draconian Measures
Walied Soliman, Sick Kids Toronto Director
Walied Soliman Wins Global Citizen Of The Year Award
O’Toole Lobbied By NCCM, Anti-Free Speech
O’Toole Lobbied By CIJA, Anti-Free Speech
Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud
Erin O’Toole Pushing FIPA In House Of Commons
Full Text Of FIPA With China
CANZUK International Website
James Skinner’s LinkedIn Page
CPC On The Climate Change Agenda
O’Toole, Private Member’s Bill C-405
Lobbying By SNC Lavalin For Deferred Pros. Agreement
Aga Khan Lobbies O’Toole For Funding
https://twitter.com/DerekSloanCPC/status/1351314995133501443
Derek Sloan’s Petition e-2961

2. O’Toole Chief Of Staff Walied Soliman

Walied Soliman, O’Toole’s Chief of Staff, has been a Director of Sick Kids Hospital Toronto since 2012. Sick Kids is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. One has to wonder if that is why O’Toole is so supportive of restrictive measures and lockdowns in general.

Soliman was awarded “Global Citizen Of the Year” in 2019. He’s also part of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which is pushing hate speech laws in Canada.

3. Ties To Anti-Free Speech Lobby

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, (NCCM) and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, (CIJA), are just 2 groups working to rewrite the laws in Canada on hate speech. While this is marketed in a harmless manner, the devil’s in the details about what may be included.

4. Ties To Vaccine/Pandemic Industry

Why is O’Toole so vaccination happy? It could be the rampant pharmaceutical lobbying that has been going on, of all major parties. To the lay observer, it looks like he is fulfilling the wishes of special interests, instead of those of Canadians.

This is true with GAVI as well, which is also Gates funded. GAVI and Crestview Strategy lobbied the Office of the Official Opposition as well. At the time, this was Andrew Scheer. However, it seems doubtful that O’Toole’s stance will be any different.

5. Heenan Blaikie, Desmarais, Facebook

Before getting into Parliament, O’Toole worked for the law firm Heenan Blaikie (which is now defunct). It’s the same firm that Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked for. The Desmarais Family also had connections the the company.

In his duties, O’Toole also acted as a lobbyist for Facebook, trying to influence the Government of Stephen Harper — which he later became part of.

6. Jeff Ballingall, Canada Proud

O’Toole’s campaign was aided by Jeff Ballingall, and a group called Canada Proud. This is an NGO that tries to promote “conservative” politicians and movements. There are Provincial efforts as well, including Ontario Proud, which helped install Doug Ford into power. O’Toole was helped along by social media pros who got him more attention.

Side note: Ballingall works for The Post Millennial, which is owned by Matthew Azrieli. He is the grandson of the late David Azrieli, media mogul and billionaire.

7. FIPA, Selling Out Canada To China

Upon entering the House of Commons, O’Toole worked as a Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade. His first major gig was pushing FIPA, an agreement which sold Canadian sovereignty to China for a minimum of 31 years. Even after all this time, there’s no indication O’Toole regrets his involvement. See this earlier review on FIPA.

8. CANZUK, Open Borders Agreement

CANZUK is an acronym (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United Kingdom). The group, CANZUK International, is in a compaign for a treaty that would open borders between those countries. More countries could eventually be added. James Skinner, the head of the group, also worked for the CPC, and it looks like CANZUK is in fact their creation.

O’Toole is on record supporting CANZUK, and future expansion as well. He gives a variety of reasons, depending on what the circumstances are.

9. Open Borders Immigration Agenda

Would O’Toole and the Conservatives reduce the hordes of people entering Canada each year? Would they do something about the large numbers of students and temporary workers who have pathways to extend? It seems most unlikely.

The true scale of immigration into Canada has been covered extensively on this site, so no need to rehash it here. But fair to say that O’Toole either lowballs it, or has no clue whatsoever.

10. Supporting Climate Change Agenda

Ottawa, ON – Dan Albas, Conservative Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, released the following statement regarding Justin Trudeau’s plan to triple the Carbon Tax:

“Fighting climate change at home and around the world is an important goal that takes work. Canadians agree on the importance of protecting our environment and natural spaces, and it is an issue that our Party and Leader are passionate about.

“It’s shameful that the Liberals failed to properly consult provinces on their plan raise the Carbon Tax. The environment is an area of shared jurisdiction and Canada’s Conservatives will respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories by scrapping Trudeau’s Carbon Tax. If provinces want to use market mechanisms, other forms of carbon pricing, or regulatory measures, that is up to them.

“This week, Conservatives put forward a motion to stop the Liberals from raising taxes during the pandemic. Not only did the Liberals vote against our motion, but they are now raising the Carbon Tax even higher. This increase will mean that Canadians will pay more for groceries, home heating, and add up to 37.57 cents per litre to the cost of gas.

A moment of clarification here: O’Toole and the CPC don’t actually take issue with the climate change agenda itself. Instead, they limit their criticisms specifically to Carbon taxes.

The disingenuous nature of the Provinces “challenging” the Carbon taxes, while supporting the climate change agenda has also been covered here.

11. Weakening Protections On Worker Pensions

Although it ultimately went nowhere, O’Toole previously introduced Private Member’s Bill C-405, which would make it easier for bankrupt companies to transfer employee pensions instead of paying them out. Wonder where he got that idea from.

12. SNC Lavalin, Deferred Prosecution

Ever wonder why Conservatives were so tepid on SNC Lavalin getting their deferred prosecution agreement? Could be because they were also lobbied for it. Seems that “tough on crime” has its limits.

13. Aga Khan Foundation Canada

Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is a registered charity that supports social development programs in Asia and Africa. As a member of the Aga Khan Development Network, AKFC works to address the root causes of poverty: finding and sharing effective and lasting solutions that help improve the quality of life for poor communities. Our programs focus on four core areas: health, education, rural development and building the capacity of non-governmental organizations.

In the year 2018, the Aga Khan Foundation received roughly $32 million from Canadian taxpayers. It’s a little disturbing to see Conservatives lobbied by this group as well, especially considering the grief they gave Trudeau over his winter vacation.

14. O’Toole Never Mentions Central Banking

From time to time, O’Toole will make noises about how Conservatives are better managers of money than Liberals. However, he never talks about private central banking, which is probably the biggest scam in history. He was in Parliament during the Bank of Canada case (so he presumably is familiar with the issue). But he will never talk about it openly.

15. Why Throw Derek Sloan Under The Bus?

Derek Sloan, a CPC MP, faces expulsion from his party for accepting a donation of $131 from a so-called “white supremacist”. Is that the real reason for this, or was O’Toole pressured by his pharma handlers after Sloan sponsored? Petition e-2961 referred to these vaccines as “human experimentation”.

Obviously O’Toole knows for sure, but the claim of a “racist donation” seems like a thinly veiled attempt to dump a politician who is actually critical of the vaccination agenda.

So who’s pulling Erin O’Toole’s strings? It seems everyone except the Canadian public.

CV #35(B): Deja Vu? Parallels With 2009 H1N1; Ferguson; PCR; Limited Trials; Indemnification

“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.” Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. Sure, there are standards, but they can be bypassed if needed.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Imperial College London Modelling H1N1
https://archive.is/KLgV2
Imperial College London’s Findings On Swine Flu (H1N1)
https://archive.is/gj4R6
CDC Approves PCR Tests For H1N1 Detection
Interim Order Allowing H1N1 Vaccine
[A] Q&A About Vaccine Arepanrix H1N1 Approval
[A] Information About Research Performed
https://archive.is/WskgA
[B] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine
https://archive.is/wip/q1Z79
Food & Drug Act Of Canada
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
2010 Film: Outbreak, Anatomy Of A Plague
Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

Order In Council: 2009-1769
Order In Council: 2009-1857

3. Neil Ferguson’s Shoddy Modelling

Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London were also involved in modelling H1N1 (Swine Flu), over a decade ago. His models are about as off the mark then as they are now.

Imperial College London has financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates himself shows interest in many of ICL’s activities.

Professor Neil Ferguson, the corresponding author of the new research from the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling at Imperial College London, said: “Our study shows that this virus is spreading just as we would expect for the early stages of a flu pandemic. So far, it has been following a very similar pattern to the flu pandemic in 1957, in terms of the proportion of people who are becoming infected and the percentage of potentially fatal cases that we are seeing.

“What we’re seeing is not the same as seasonal flu and there is still cause for concern – we would expect this pandemic to at least double the burden on our healthcare systems. However, this initial modelling suggests that the H1N1 virus is not as easily transmitted or as lethal as that found in the flu pandemic in 1918,” added Professor Ferguson.

Even back in 2009 (and in fact earlier), Ferguson was quite willing to push the panic button based on very incomplete information. It must be noted that models are not proof or evidence, they are merely predictions. These predictions are subjected to the same limitations and biases of the people conducting them.

Ferguson’s “models” predicted some 65,000 deaths in the U.K. as a result of Swine Flu. A total of 457 materialized in the end. And it’s just one of the times he’s grossly overshot the mark.

4. PCR Tests Used For Swine Flu Detection

This guidance was revised to clarify that the current rRT-PCR developed by CDC to detect novel influenza A ( H1N1) is authorized by the FDA. The FDA authorization, also termed Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, is not equivalent to FDA cleared, which was incorrectly stated in the previous version of the guidance.

Those PCR tests (which don’t detect Covid-19), were also approved for use in diagnosing H1N1 by the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. The technology wasn’t suited then, and isn’t now.

5. Inadequate Clinical Trials: (Arepanrix H1N1)

4. What evidence was used to support the authorization of Arepanrix™ H1N1?
A prototype or “mock” vaccine was developed in the pre-pandemic period using another strain of influenza virus, the H5N1 strain. During this period Health Canada inspected the vaccine manufacturing facilities, validated the vaccine production process, and reviewed results from both animal and human studies with the mock vaccine. In addition, the safety and effectiveness of the adjuvant to be used with the vaccine was assessed by Health Canada. Once the H1N1 virus emerged as the pandemic virus, the manufacturer initiated vaccine production using the strain recommended by the WHO.

5. What are the benefits and potential risks associated with Arepanrix™ H1N1?
Criteria have been established to assess the immunogenicity of vaccines. Clinical trial results indicate that Arepanrix meets all of these criteria, which means that the vaccine produces an adequate level of protection against the H1N1 pandemic virus.
.
As with all medicinal products, there may be side effects or adverse events associated with the use of the product. Some of the very common adverse events that have been observed in clinical trials with the pandemic vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, swollen glands in the neck, joint pain, and muscle ache. Refer to the product leaflet for additional information on adverse events.

6. How was Arepanrix™ H1N1 authorized?
Arepanrix™ H1N1 was approved because it was shown that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks. The time frame between vaccine manufacturing and the need to use the vaccine in time to provide the public with protection against the virus is very short. As a result, it has not been possible for the manufacturer to collect the usual full information necessary for a Notice of Compliance to be issued under the Food and Drug Regulations. For this reason, an Interim Order was used to provide an alternate pathway to allow for the authorization for sale of the vaccine. Under the Interim Order, the manufacturer is required to continue submitting data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will review this information as it becomes available.

This vaccine was rushed out for use in the general population. This was despite the testing not being complete. The Minister of Health signed an interim Order allowing it to be dispensed anyway.

It’s worth pointing out that initial trials were not even conducted on the H1N1 influenza strain, but on another one. Fair to ask how valid that initial research would be.

Elderly (>60 years):
There are limited data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) and with Arepanrix™ H1N1 vaccine in adults aged over 60 years.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is one dose of 0.5mL.
.
Immunogenicity data obtained at 3 weeks after administration of Pandemrix (H1N1) or Arepanrix™ H1N1 in clinical studies in this age group suggest that a single dose may be sufficient.
.
If a second dose is administered, it should be given after an interval of at least three weeks. See section Pharmacodynamics.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for Arepanrix™ H1N1 in this age group. There are limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) in this age group.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is in accordance with recommendations for adults.

Children aged from 6 months to 9 years:
One dose of 0.25mL (i.e. half of the adult dose) at an elected date.

Preliminary immunogenicity data obtained in a limited number of children aged 6-35 months who received two doses of 0.25 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) containing 1.9 µg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) and a limited number of children aged 3-9 years who received one dose of 0.5 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) show that a good immune response is elicited after the first dose, but there is a further immune response to a second dose of 0.25 mL administered to children aged 6-35 months after an interval of three weeks.

Extremely limited studies were done prior to getting interim approval from the Minister of Health. In some cases, they were using different vaccines and working with different strains. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

6. Inadequate Trials: (Monovalent Vaccine)

Elderly (>60 years):
No clinical data are available for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children aged 3-9 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that if used in this age group, a 2-dose regimen (0.5mL with an interval of at least 21 days between doses) is recommended.

Children aged from 6-35 months:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that for this age group, unadjuvanted vaccine may not be suitable against this pandemic strain.

Children aged less than 6 months:
Vaccination is not currently recommended in this age group.
For further information, see section Pharmacodynamics.

This isn’t selective editing or anything of the sort. Health Canada approved the use of this drug for children between 6 months and 17 years, and over the age of 60, without there being clinical data to support that it worked. This is chilling to read.

7. Approval Of Experimental Drugs

“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.” [from the Food and Drugs Act]

That is Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drug Act of Canada. It was used to approve 2 vaccines without full and complete trials. They were:
[1] Arepanrix™ H1N1 (AS03-Adjuvanted H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine)
[2] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant)

The Minister has the discretion to do this. And it happened, despite there not being adequate testing done. Could the same thing happen with Covid-19?

8. Indemnification From The Courts

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer, GSK, ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

Can we expect the same sort of thing here with Covid-19? Will the Government approve a vaccine (or multiple vaccines), that haven’t properly been tested, and indemnify the manufacturers? After all, the patients aren’t buying directly from the manufacturer, but are getting it from their doctors.

Moreover, doctors are largely immune from action against them if they are following approved practices. In this case, it would be administering drugs that Health Canada approved.

GSK has been registered as lobbying the Federal Government since 1996, and there are hundreds of communications reports. But getting an indemnification agreement was probably just a coincidence.

9. Strange Events Happened In 2010

The next year, Tam would go on to have an appearance in the movie “Outbreak: Anatomy Of A Plague”. She advocated locking people up and putting tracking bracelets on them. Quite the bit of predictive programming.

Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

The infamous “Lockstep Narrative” was also written in 2010. That was just one scenario laid out in the infamous paper, but it largely parallels what’s happening today.

10. History Repeating Itself In 2020?

This may seem a bit hyperbolic, but what is going on in 2009 with Swine Flu closely parallels what is happening Covid-19. Main points include:

-Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London
-Useless PCR tests to detect viral infection
-Vaccines not fully tested
-Health Canada approves despite incomplete tests
-Vaccine manufacturers are indemnified

There are some differences though. The World Economic Forum wasn’t touting the “Great Reset”, and communist movements weren’t nearly as overt as today. Or perhaps that was all just setting it in motion.