Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

Tax Inspectors Without Borders; Partnered With OECD & UNDP

Get ready for increased efforts to enforce taxation rules globally. While this is promoted as a means of stopping tax cheats, it’s unlikely stop there. Once the infrastructure is fully up and operational, what’s to stop organizations like the UN from simply imposing global taxes?

1. TIWB Partners With OECD/UNDP

OECD/UNDP Partnership
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have joined forces to extend the global reach of Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB) and to scale-up operations. The partnership was launched at the Third Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa on 13 July 2015 and was welcomed by stakeholders from business, civil society, as well as OECD and developing country governments attending the conference. The Initiative was widely hailed as capable of assisting developing countries mobilize much-needed domestic revenues in support of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The TIWB Initiative facilitates targeted, tax audit assistance programmes in developing countries across the globe. The TIWB Initiative is a strong response to the attention given to effective and efficient mobilisation of domestic resources in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the commitments made by the international community in Addis Ababa to strengthen international tax co-operation

UNDP contributes in the following ways:
.
-Through its country offices, supports development and completion of TIWB programmes in developing, countries;
-Promotes lessons learned and the sharing of good practices of TIWB country programmes with the international development community;
-Manages a roster of tax audit experts;
-Manages designated donor financial resources for TIWB activities;
-Handles contracts for retired experts (or former tax officials) participating in TIWB programmes.

The OECD contributes in the following ways:
.
-Hosts the TIWB Secretariat at the OECD offices in Paris;
-Identifies and provides support to host tax administrations on technical taxation issues and assists host and partner tax administrations in the set-up of TIWB programmes;
-Provides technical support to UNDP on selection and quality assurance of the roster of tax audit experts;
-Develops manuals, tools and research on best administrative practices in tax administrations and for TIWB Programmes.
-Monitors, assesses and reports on results of TIWB programmes.

So it isn’t just about helping certain countries get their tax money. It’s also about achieving the UN Sustainable Development Agenda goals laid out in 2015. The OECD also made their announcement about the partnership.

In reality, this is the equivalent, (or soon to be the equivalent), of a global tax administration. Think of the Canada Revenue Agency, just on a worldwide scale. While there seems to be nothing wrong on the surface with stoppin tax cheats, it reeks of growing intrusion into national affairs.

2. TIWB Conference September 28, 2020

This high-level event provided an opportunity to engage with government ministers and senior officials and look at the TIWB approach of bringing countries together to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and Illicit Financial Flows. The panel reflected on how the experiences from the initiative can be utilised to recover from COVID-19 and re-imagining a new future, specifically in the context of the Financing for Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond process.
.
The TIWB Annual Report 2020 was launched during the event.
.
This event took place in the margins of the 75th United Nations’ General Assembly on 28 September 2020.

The Panel talks about efforts that TIWB is undertaking, and about how they can help advance the UNSDA in light of the coronavirus pandemic. How convenient it is for them.

3. Tax Inspectors Without Borders’ Donors

Seems rather strange that the World Bank and the Open Society, (George Soros), would be contributing to such a program. Or perhaps it isn’t. There are several donor nations in Europe, and Japan, also contributing.

4. World Bank Global Tax Umbrella Program

The Global Tax Program (GTP) provides an umbrella framework for tax support and leads an ongoing program of activities at both international tax and country levels focused on strengthening tax institutions and mobilizing revenues at the international and domestic levels. The GTP Program is one of the Umbrella 2.0 pilots for Trust Fund Reforms recently undertaken by the WBG.

The international community has set ambitious goals to end extreme poverty and boost inclusive and sustainable growth by 2030. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires massive investment in physical and human capital. Focus is needed on the quality, fairness, and equity of domestic tax collection.

To be clear, this isn’t simply about tax collection. It’s also about seeing that those taxes are used according to the goals set out by TIWB/OECD/UNDP. There are certainly strings attached.

5. Int’l Monetary Fund On Tax Avoidance

The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, has taken an interest in tax collecting, estimating that $12 billion is in corporate shells, and another $7 billion is hidden by people overseas.

Information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), have allowed more research and study to take place.

6. Reported By Yahoo News In 2015

Yahoo reported the launch of Tax Inspectors Without Borders back in 2015. Short article, but it covered a lot of important points. Reuters and TaxConnections addressed it as well.

7. TIWB Ultimately Pushing Policy Change

Tax Inspectors Without Borders talks about how they are helping in the 3rd World with regard to tax evasion, but they minimize a very important issue. TIWB is interested in pushing policy changes in taxation, and they are trying to get more money spent on Agenda 2030. This isn’t altruism on their part, but is ideologically motivated.

With all of this in mind, one very serious question has to be asked: will TIWB (at some point), begin calling for global taxation schemes?

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Mainpage
TIWB Partners With Both OECD/UNDP
OECD Announces Launch Of TIWB Programme

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2017
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2018
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2019
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2020

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Twitter (@TIWB_News)
Tax Inspectors Without Borders YouTube Channel
UN Development Programme YouTube Channel

World Bank Global Tax Program (Mainpage)
World Bank Global Tax Programme, 2020 Report
World Bank Global Tax Program, 2020 Report
World Bank, Taxation, Sustainable Development
International Monetary Fund On Tax Evasion

Yahoo: TIWB Started In 2015
Reuters On Covering The Launch Of TIWB

Posted on

Some Thoughts On Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-Paris Accord PhD Dissertation

Leslyn Lewis finished her PhD dissertation in May 2019 from York University, in Toronto. It covered a number of legal areas around climate change, the Paris Accord, intellectual property, and trade agreements. Months after finishing, she ran for the leadership of the CPC, as Andrew Scheer had been forced out.

1. About Leslyn Lewis’ PhD Dissertation

To start out: the quality of the writing is very good. The content is well organized and the paper well cited. This wasn’t just some mess hastily thrown together. This is not to question her reading or writing abilities — which are impressive — but to ask ideologically what she stands for.

However, the concern now starts to creep in. This wasn’t some undergraduate paper written 20 or 30 years ago, but Lewis’ PhD dissertation. She finished it in 2019, at the age of 48.

From the content of the paper, it seems clear that Lewis fully embraces the climate change scam as a reality. She supports the Paris Agreement, despite its explicit and repeated focus on “climate finance, and its focus on “alternative energy sources”. She appears to have bought into the green agenda. The paper itself discusses (among other things), how trade agreements and intellectual property disputes can impede efforts to fight climate change.

Less than a year later, Lewis, (a political unknown), would be running for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership. She finished 3rd. Like most “conservatives”, she sings the praises of the UNSDA and Paris Accord, only objecting to a Carbon tax.

Lewis also calls herself a “social conservative”, but was once a Director at LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund. LEAF is a pro-death, anti-family organization.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Intellectual property also becomes a tricky issue. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

3. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

4. Quotes From Lewis’ 2019 Dissertation

The dissertation consists of several chapters, each with its own abstract. The document itself is large enough to stand alone as a book. This review doesn’t really do justice to the volume of writing, but outlines the more interesting parts.

(screenshots from the dissertation)

[Page 112]
ABSTRACT
Climate change abatement strategies are intrinsically linked to policies that encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as renewable energies. The importance of these strategies has been entrenched in various World Trade Organization (WTO) treaties including the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs”), as well as pre-WTO treaties like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”). The issue of environmental subsides, specifically renewable energy subsidies, have resurfaced in a number of disputes before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body since its first green subsidy case, brought in 2010 by Japan against Canada’s Feed-In Tariff Program (“FIT Program”). In the initial case, Japan alleged that the Ontario FIT Program’s local content requirement was discriminatory against foreign renewable energy products. Moreover, discrimination amounted to a prohibited subsidy under the SCM Agreement and was simultaneously contrary to the most favourable nation status (“MFN”) under the GATT. This decision raises concern about whether the SCM Agreement poses a barrier to governmental policies promoting FIT Programs to encourage renewable energy usage and its impact on the developing world. Specifically, do treaties like the SCM Agreement impede the development of government climate change abatement policies by requiring these programs to meet a minimum standard of trade compliance? Should WTO treaties like the SCM Agreement be amended to include flexibilities to combat climate change, especially in light of the goals set in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change? This paper will review the WTO subsidy rules and query whether flexibilities need to be entertained within the area of nonactionable subsidies. This mode of inquiry questions whether FIT Programs be classified as subsidies under the SCM Agreement. If FIT Programs are properly classified as subsidies, should these initiatives be granted an exemption under the SCM Agreement on the basis of public policy— with the goal of facilitating affordable renewable energy and climate change abatement in the developing world?

For better or for worse, there are a number of trade regulations, such as those imposed by the World Trade Organization. These set out guidelines for international trade. Lewis makes an argument that perhaps exceptions should be put into such rules in certain circumstances. In this case, she specifically refers to climate change and complying with the Paris Agreement.

[Page 171]
ABSTRACT
Intellectual property law was constructed to facilitate innovation and development by granting a limited monopoly in exchange for the public’s right to use an invention after the period of exclusivity expires. The trade-off of granting intellectual property protections in reward for the investment in an invention is intended to be a temporary benefit. Trade secrets have been thought of as the weakest form of intellectual property, because non-disclosure is the only form of protection. In other words, infringement of a trade secret occurs upon the unauthorized disclosure of the secret. However, absent reverse engineering and/or legitimate disclosure, protection over trade secrets may arguably extend the exclusivity rights in perpetuity. The debate on “evergreening” has focused largely on extending the life cycle of pharmaceutical patents to the omission of other forms of intellectual property, like trade secrets. The concept has also been widely ignored in relation to climate change abatement technologies. In this regard, considerations around evergreening and trade secrets have been substantially neglected. The loophole in international intellectual property treaties, like Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), may lead to inequalities between industrial nations and developing ones, especially for products like photovoltaic solar panels that rely heavily on trade-secret protection. In addition, this non-disclosure may also impact on green technology transfer and may impede climate change abatement strategies in the developing world. This paper will explore the practice of evergreening as it relates to the prospect that trade secret protection may extend beyond the 20-year limit, as prescribed in TRIPS, and the implications of this practice for developing countries that seek to meet climate change commitments as outlined in the 2016 Paris Climate Change Agreement (the “Paris Agreement”). Arguably, the absence of a fixed statutory period for trade secrets may enable patent owners to participate in creative ways to “evergreen” their products or processes, with the result of extending the life-cycle. The practice of evergreening through trade secrets may have a negative impact on the ability of developing nations to meet their national climate change objectives. Specifically, international treaties like TRIPS, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (“GATT”), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “UNFCCC”), and the Paris Agreement, have attempted to incorporate climate change flexibilities that assist developing countries in meeting their climate change goals. The efficacy of technology transfer provisions in international law will be examined within the context of how the lack of a fixed term for trade secrets impacts on actual green technology transfer. It will canvass whether trade secret protection of off-patent green technologies acts as an inadvertent barrier to technology transfer within the developing world.

Intellectual property is what it sounds like. When a person creates or discovers things, they have certain rights to it. This makes sense. Patents prevent others from scooping and using another’s inventions, at least for a number of years. Trademarks or copyright prevent others from using creations or designs (subject to fair dealing limitations).

Lewis raises the argument of making exceptions to these IP laws if they were used for a “greater good”, such as combatting climate change.

[Page 245]
ABSTRACT
A number of Conference of Parties (“COP”) to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (“the UNFCCC”) have addressed the issue of climate change and its effect on the developing world. Energy insecurity must be addressed as a precondition to sustainable development, along with the regional factors that pose legal and institutional barriers to implementing of green energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Many sub-Saharan African nations have enacted renewable energy laws and regulations to increase investor confidence in green energy projects. Despite current regulatory enhancements, investors are still reluctant to invest in the region due to financing and political risks. Climate financing could potentially address investor concerns, however, initiatives like the Green Climate Fund (“GC Fund”) and the African Climate Change Fund need to be implemented in a manner that promotes confidence among investors in these high capital projects. Arguably, for climate financing to achieve its full potential in sub-Saharan Africa it must be implemented in an innovative fashion that contemplates the infrastructure, environment and social governance for investments as well as fulfilling the dual goal of development and balancing national commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement (COP 21).

In this chapter Lewis goes on to make the argument that “climate financing”, (which really means a variety of Carbon taxes), should be implemented in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement and promote development in the 3rd World.

Lewis doesn’t seem to have an issue with intellectual property or trade regulations on principle. She just argues that exceptions should be made for fighting climate change.

These, of course, are just abstracts of a few chapters, not the entire dissertation. The whole document is quite long, nearly 400 pages when all the references and citations are added in.

5. Paris Accord Will Kill Oil & Gas Industry

Just read Article #9…..

Article 9
1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stocktake referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

Paris Agreement Full Text

That is, of course, just Article 9. Here is an earlier review. Claiming to be able to implement the Paris Accord without Carbon taxes is disingenuous, as large parts of the Agreement specifically refer to climate finance.

While many could claim that they never actually read the Agreement, Lewis’ dissertation revolves around this and the Sustainable Development Agenda. She quotes it at length. She has clearly read and understood what is going on. The dissertation is very well written, and it’s clear a lot of work went into it.

So what does Leslyn Lewis actually believe when it comes to climate change, the Paris Agreement, and various UN taxes? Who knows?

Note: Since Lewis did run to become head of the CPC (and official Opposition Leader), and since she is still running for office, she is a public figure.

As an side: Alberta MP Garnett Genuis tried to defend voting for the Paris Agreement in 2017. It didn’t go well. Here is a clip of him with Ezra Levant from Rebel News.

Posted on

Green Climate Fund, And The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The Green Climate Fund is heavily pushing for countries to use this “pandemic” as a chance to implement widespread social changes. Others claim that climate change makes the world vulnerable to it happening again. If this wasn’t planned out, then at a minimum, it comes across as very opportunistic.

1. Green Climate Fund Conference Speakers

Letting the members speak for themselves might be the best option. They quite openly talk about how the Covid-19 “pandemic” creates an opportunity to implement broader social changes. It was never really about a virus, as that’s just an excuse. See here, here and here. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, all of this comes across as very opportunistic.

2. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change

Background
At COP 16 held in Cancun, by decision 1/CP.16, Parties established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention under Article 11. The Fund is governed by the GCF Board and it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows.

The Green Climate Fund was a creation based on Article 11 of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in December 2010.

[Article] 11. Agrees that adaptation is a challenge faced by all Parties, and that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to enable and support the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable;

The Green Climate Fund was approved, (at least in principle), because of this article of the treaty.

3. What Is The Green Climate Fund?

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. GCF has a crucial role in serving the Paris Agreement, supporting the goal of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C. It does this by channelling climate finance to developing countries, which have joined other nations in committing to climate action.

Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, including by both public and private sectors. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources. Coming from a variety of sources, these resources address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

GCF launched its initial resource mobilisation in 2014, and rapidly gathered pledges worth USD 10.3 billion. These funds come mainly from developed countries, but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city.

GCF’s activities are aligned with the priorities of developing countries through the principle of country ownership, and the Fund has established a direct access modality so that national and sub-national organisations can receive funding directly, rather than only via international intermediaries.

The Fund pays particular attention to the needs of societies that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

GCF aims to catalyse a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climate-resilient development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change.

Our innovation is to use public investment to stimulate private finance, unlocking the power of climate-friendly investment for low emission, climate resilient development. To achieve maximum impact, GCF seeks to catalyse funds, multiplying the effect of its initial financing by opening markets to new investments.

Balanced portfolio
GCF’s investments are aimed at achieving maximum impact in the developing world, supporting paradigm shifts in both mitigation and adaptation. The Fund aims for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time. It also aims for a floor of 50 percent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

Unlocking private finance
The Fund is unique in its ability to engage directly with both the public and private sectors in transformational climate-sensitive investments. GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility (PSF). As part of its innovative framework, it has the capacity to bear significant climate-related risk, allowing it to leverage and crowd in additional financing. It offers a wide range of financial products including grants, concessional loans, subordinated debt, equity, and guarantees. This enables it to match project needs and adapt to specific investment contexts, including using its funding to overcome market barriers for private finance.

On the surface, all of this sounds fine. The Green Climate Fund claims that it’s raising money to deal with environmental affairs. However, it’s not so straightforward. This isn’t about preventing climate change, but about using warnings and fears about it to make money.

4. AOC: House Resolution 109, Green New Deal

Green-New-Deal-FINAL

While AOC is frequently mocked for low intelligence, the reality is that a lot of her actions are motivated by deceitfulness, not being naive. Take for example, House Resolution 109, the infamous Green New Deal. This was introduced in 2019, not long after she was elected to Congress.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

That admission pretty much killed Resolution 109. It became clear at that point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff didn’t actually believe in what they were pushing. Instead, this was a pretext to enact a much larger social agenda.

Ocasio-Cortez was just a puppet in a much larger scheme.

5. The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The head of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on Thursday called for a global Green New Deal in which redirected financial flows usher in an age of sustainable, post-pandemic growth that takes the heat out of dangerous planetary warming.

“Climate action and COVID-19 recovery measures must be mutually supportive to be effective,” said GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec during an international conference in South Korea exploring how COVID-19 recovery efforts can be directed away from investments that are harming the planet towards those creating a global green economy. 

The conference focused on South Korea’s national plans to counter the effects of the pandemic through economic recovery pathways leading to future carbon neutrality, while also reflecting on how similar “Green New Deals” are being adopted across the world.

Reflecting the urgency COVID-19 has brought to the need to take climate action, conference participants considered how the paths that countries take now in recovering from COVID-19 will determine whether the world achieves the Paris Agreement goals and a net zero emissions future.

The Government of South Korea, for example, seems to have fully embraced the Green New Deal. This is at least in part as a response to the coronavirus “pandemic”.

It certainly is convenient that this “pandemic” struck when and how it did. Otherwise, people might be a lot more hesitant to embrace the radical restructuring of their economy. Let’s be clear, this is just an excuse to implement their communist agenda.

While the focus here is on South Korea, the Green Climate Fund, (and their allies), support all countries adopting some version of the Green New Deal.

6. Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures are already a reality in New Zealand, and is coming to Britain as well. And we are not too far off from adopting it in Canada. This is an initiative that the Green Climate Fund fully supports, just on a global scale. If fully implemented, many businesses (globally), would have to submit disclosure forms to the UN for their approval.

7. Canada’s Industries To Be Phased Out

The United Nations has officially asked for certain industries to be allowed to die off. In Canada, this certainly means the end of oil & gas, among others. It’s not like the Conservatives, and their modified “Build Back Better” expression will do much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye7bC-OSJq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrD1ICEFC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtDndpaYljc

UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
Text Of 2010 UNFCCC Document
https://www.greenclimate.fund/about
South Korea: Global Green New Deal
Green Climate Fund Strategic Plan, 2020 to 2023
Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures In New Zealand
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures In UK
https://twitter.com/theGCF/status/1308602992300560384
https://twitter.com/AniaGrobicki1/status/1324520561171521536/photo/1
https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1299341836948058112

HR 109: Green-New-Deal-FINAL
The Lies Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Erin O’Toole: Build Back Stronger
Speech By Mark Carney (From 2015)

Posted on

Green Horizon Summit, The New Business Model

The “Great Reset” was for a while decried as a conspiracy theory. Now, these people don’t even bother to hide their plans. Now, over the last few days, the Green Horizon Summit has been underway. One of the goals is to flesh out the details for making that reset happen.

1. Mark Carney, Head Of UN Climate Finance

Some quotes from the November 2020 Climate Horizon Summit. Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada (and later the Bank of England). Now, he heads UN Climate Action and Finance, which will force businesses and Governments into playing ball with the climate change agenda. Interestingly, he talks about Japanese pensions already being poured into this project.

Carney became somewhat infamous after his public threat that companies who don’t play along with the climate change agenda will go bankrupt.

2. Green Horizon Summit Supported By WEF

It’s time to reset the relationship between finance and the real economy. For the sake of our planet, it’s also time for public and private finance to get behind the transition to a sustainable and resilient future for all.
.
But with no UN climate conference (COP) this year owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining momentum on climate action and the economic changes required is vital. From 9-11 November, the Green Horizon Summit: The Pivotal Role of Finance will help do just that.
.
Across 10 sessions and three days, the summit will virtually convene more than 2,500 people from around the world to discuss five main themes:
.
-Reporting, Risk Management and Return
–Financing the Energy Transition
-Infrastructure and Green Growth
-Financing Resilience and Adaptation
-Nature and Net Zero
.
The programme features a line-up of more than 100 global business and climate leaders, including HRH The Prince of Wales, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Breakthrough Energy Founder Bill Gates, ECB Chief Christine Lagarde, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney and many more.

The World Economic Forum (of which Chrystia Freeland is a Trustee), supports 100% the Green Horizon Summit. It’s no surprise, given WEF is driving the “Great Reset”. The goals overlap heavily.

WEF doesn’t even bother to hide their agenda anymore. In fact, many videos of it are freely available online. It’s quite the rabbit hole.

3. Bill Gates: Founder, Breakthrough Energy

It’s not enough that Gates is involved in the abortion industry, computers, vaccines, and eugenics. He’s also pushing the climate change agenda as well.

Mukesh Ambani
Reliance Industries Limited
Chairman and Managing Director
BOARD MEMBER

John Arnold
Laura & John Arnold Foundation
Co-chair
BOARD MEMBER

Jeff Bezos
Amazon
Founder & CEO

HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Alwaleed Philanthropies
Chairman

Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg LP
CEO

Richard Branson
Virgin Group
Founder

Ray Dalio
Bridgewater Associates
Founder

John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Bill Gates
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Co-chair
CHAIR OF THE BOARD

Reid Hoffman
LinkedIn
Co-founder

Chris Hohn
The Children’s Investment Fund
Founder

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Founder
BOARD MEMBER

Jack Ma
Alibaba Group
Executive Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna
Good Ventures
Co-founders

Patrice Motsepe
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM)
Founder & Executive Chairman

Xavier Niel
Illiad Group
Founder

Hasso Plattner
SAP SE
Co-founder

Julian Robertson
Tiger Management
Founder & Chairman

David Rubenstein
The Carlyle Group
Co-founder and Co-Executive Chairman

Nat Simons & Laura Baxter-Simons
Prelude Ventures
Co-founders

Masayoshi Son
SoftBank Group Corp.
Founder, Chairman & CEO

Ms. Zhang Xin & Mr. Pan Shiyi
SOHO China
Co-founder & CEO, Chairman

Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a group of investors who are working together in a fund that is patient, flexible, and committed to the guiding principles of Breakthrough Energy – including supporting net-zero emissions technology and ensuring affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all.

On a semi-serious note: one has to ask if Gates’ desire to have less people on the planet counts as an official solution, or is just a personal preference.

4. Sean Kidney, Climate Bonds Initiative

Believe it or not, climate bonds are an actual industry, with serious backers pouring money into it. Sure, the climate bonds are bound to collapse, as they don’t offer anything tangible. However, for a time, they will make some people extremely wealthy.

5. Daniel Hanna, Standard Chartered Bank

Standard Chartered has had a long commitment to Sustainable Finance. Our approach brings together three themes. First, we believe in the critical importance of being a responsible institution through managing the potential negative impact that our activities could have through strong environmental, social and governance risk filters. Our Environmental and Social Risk Management team was first established in 1997. Second, we also believe in the power that fnance can have to catalyse a positive impact on our communities and the
environment. Our dedicated Sustainable Finance team brings together our experience and expertise in managing environmental, social and governance risk as well as spotting opportunities and structuring solutions to drive positive impact financing. Finally, we are focused on where we believe catalysing new sustainable fpnance matters most – regions where more capital is needed to drive sustainable growth and where their pathway to a low carbon future will have a major impact on the world’s ability to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2 degrees.

More on the forced transition into a new economy. Standard Chartered has been around for a while, and is completely on board with the climate change agenda.

6. Noel Quinn (HSBC), Roger Gifford

Why does a bank have a climate plan?
The Paris Agreement signed by global leaders in 2015 set a goal to limit the rise in the planet’s temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050. If that target is to be achieved, every organisation in the world has a part to play.

As a bank, we can help. The most significant impact we can have is helping clients to transition to producing lower carbon emissions through financing and investment.

We want to be the leading bank supporting the global economy in transitioning to net zero. By net zero we mean reducing emissions added to the atmosphere while increasing the amount taken out, achieving a balance that not only protects the planet but that builds a sustainable and thriving global economy.

Our international reach and global client network means we can influence and shape fundamental change. For more than 150 years we have opened up opportunities for our customers and communities. Achieving net zero is a huge opportunity the world has to take.

Complying with the Paris Accord is written right into their mission statement. This is one way to get people to implement your agenda. As a banker, simply refuse to have them as a client unless they make drastic changes. If enough bankers go along, the people are forced into making changes.

7. Christine Lagarde: European Central Bank

Climate change and the ECB
We at the ECB are exploring how we can be effective in the fight against climate change. We are working to identify the risks that climate change can present to the economy and the financial system. Climate change can affect the economy through extreme weather events and uncertainties related to the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The term “green bond” refers to debt securities whose proceeds are used to finance investment projects with an environmental benefit. There are different approaches to defining and certifying green bonds, and no global market standard has emerged so far.[2] While many green bonds are self-labelled, some jurisdictions have developed their own certification framework and others rely on various different guidelines.[3] As well as reducing transparency for investors, it is believed that the lack of standardised definitions and reporting requirements and the varying granularity of the underlying classifications are holding back supply,[4] inter alia because issuers face reputational risks and potential accusations of “greenwashing” if proceeds are not used for their declared purposes.[5] The ECB supports current EU initiatives under the European Commission’s action plan on sustainable finance to create a harmonised definition of “green” assets (taxonomy), which could improve transparency and facilitate the supply of green debt instruments.

It’s plain and obvious at this point that the bankers see this “pandemic” as an opportunity to implement a larger social agenda. It’s difficult to believe they weren’t in on it the entire time. The European Green Bonds seem to be thriving, however.

8. BlackRock: More Then Just Finance

As an asset manager, BlackRock invests on behalf of others, and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients. The money we manage is not our own. It belongs to people in dozens of countries trying to finance long-term goals like retirement. And we have a deep responsibility to these institutions and individuals – who are shareholders in your company and thousands of others – to promote long-term value.

Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity – a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.

The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. Research from a wide range of organizations – including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the BlackRock Investment Institute, and many others, including new studies from McKinsey on the socioeconomic implications of physical climate risk – is deepening our understanding of how climate risk will impact both our physical world and the global system that finances economic growth.

Bit of trivia here: Blackrock actually owns SNC Lavalin, which has been involved in so much corruption in recent years. Also, Laurence (Larry) Fink is a Trustee of the World Economic Forum. This company claims to take sustainability very seriously.

9. Bank For International Settlements

Although not a speaker at the Green Horizon Summit, BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, (a central bank of central banks), is on board with the green agenda. In fact, many central banks are in lockstep with the climate movement.

This is by no means all of the parties who attended the Green Horizon Summit. But it does represent a sample of the groups were part of it.

Posted on

CV #25(B): StatsCan Sending DNA Kits For Antibody Tests, Other Purposes

Statistics Canada is now mailing out DNA collection kits to random households. While this is “supposed” to be a public health measure, they clearly state that the DNA may be used for alternative purposes.

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 “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 is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/5339
https://archive.is/6q5pT
WayBack Machine Archive

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513
https://archive.is/mwdsh
WayBack Machine Archive

4Chan Posting Of Kit Mailed In Canada
Facebook Posting Of Home-Test Kits
Documentary On Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes

FEDERAL — LOCATIONS OF DEATH REPORTS
Covid In Canada August 16 to 22
Covid In Canada August 23 to 29
Covid In Canada August 30 to Sept 6
Covid In Canada September 7 to September 13
Covid In Canada October 4 to October 10
Covid In Canada October 11 to October 17
Covid In Canada October 25 to October 31

PCR TESTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkkqjnTlWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeMiAZ8Zu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3xO8e-MvQ

3. Reminder: StatsCan Raided Credit Data

In late 2018, there was a scandal because Statistics Canada had been accessing people’s credit reports. They also wanted to look into the private bank accounts of Canadians. While StatsCan frequently touts the defense that “we don’t share it with anyone”, that completely misses the point. People don’t want their bank records broken into at all.

And now, StatsCan is rolling out a major DNA sampling.

4. StatsCan Explains The DNA Kits Sent Out

As COVID-19 continues to disrupt daily life, we must manage the impacts of the pandemic, while preparing for future waves. This includes taking steps to ensure Canadians can access future treatment and vaccines. To do this, it is important that we learn as much as possible about the virus, how it affects overall health, how it spreads, and whether we are developing antibodies against it.

This unique survey will collect information in two parts. The first part is an electronic questionnaire about general health and exposure to COVID-19. The second part is an at-home finger-prick blood test, which is sent to a lab to determine the presence of COVID-19 antibodies.

Even if you do not think you have been exposed to COVID-19, your information will provide valuable answers about the virus. You will also receive a copy of your lab report, providing you with valuable information about your own health.

Your information may also be used by Statistics Canada for other statistical and research purposes.

Pretty strange how the Government will be able to tell what antibodies the body has, and if they are the correct ones, when the PCR test itself it bogus and completely inaccurate. Remember Barbara Yaffe, and her admission of 50% false positives?

How exactly will your genetic information help if there has been no exposure to the virus? What else is going on behind the scenes?

5. StatsCan Data Sharing Agreements

Data sharing agreements
For all respondents:
.
To avoid duplication of surveys, Statistics Canada may enter into agreements to share the data from this survey, including name, address, telephone number and health card number, with provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. For Quebec residents, Statistics Canada may also enter into an agreement with the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” to share the same information.
.
The “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” and provincial ministries of health may make this data available to local health authorities. Local health authorities will not receive any identifiers, only the postal code.
.
For respondents aged 15 years and older:
.
To reduce the number of questions in this questionnaire, Statistics Canada will use information from your tax forms submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. With your consent Statistics Canada will share this information from your tax forms with your provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
.
Quebec residents will also have their tax form information shared with the “Institut de la statistique du Québec”.
.
These organizations have agreed to keep the information confidential and to use it only for statistical and research purposes.
.
Record linkage
To enhance the data from this survey and to minimize the reporting burden for respondents, Statistics Canada will combine your responses with information from the tax data of all members of your household. Statistics Canada and the ministry of health for your home province or territory may also add information from other surveys or administrative sources.
.
For Quebec residents, the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” may add information from other surveys or administrative sources.

What all this means, is that information from your taxes may be shared with the Ministries of Health (Provincial and Federal), and the Public Health Agency of Canada. It also says that information from other surveys or administrative sources may be added, but doesn’t specify which ones.

In short, this is combining data sets to form universal profiles on people. These will include: tax information, DNA, health information, and data collected elsewhere. That doesn’t sound Orwellian in the slightest.

6. Information Sent To Advocacy Groups?

How will the data be used? Who will use it?
Objective statistical information is vital to researchers, analysts and decision makers across Canada. Results of the Canadian COVID-19 Antibody and Health Survey could be used by:
.
-Parliament and other policy makers, to track major initiatives, set priorities for prevention and research programs, and evaluate policy and program outcomes
-epidemiologists, biomedical and health service researchers, to understand trends in diseases and the relationship of observed risk factors to diseases
-public health professionals, to track preventable illnesses and evaluate the impact of prevention and intervention programs
–advocacy groups, to raise awareness and assist in their surveillance of health issues and health disparities.

The information will shared with advocacy groups in complaining of disparities in health? Why does this seem like a way to funnel money under the guise of “equity”?

It’s also rather confusing. Supposedly 48,000 people are just assigned a number, and no personal information will be connected to it. How then will it be connected to tax information, and other sources?

7. Tests Are Already Being Distributed

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513

https://www.facebook.com/100032513712949/posts/357421085351679/

8. Truth About Death Statistics In Canada

What’s most infuriating is that the truth is known that this “pandemic” is a hoax, but leaders and the media intentionally deceive us. The most recent report available, or see the archived version.

Even by the Government’s methods of screwing around with the numbers, the vast majority of people will recover on their own. At the time of writing this, Health Canada reports 218,000 recoveries nationwide. The site https://corona-scanner.com/ reports over 35 million recoveries globally. Why is any sort of vaccine needed then? What will be in it?

On Table 6, it’s reported that, as of October 31, 2020, a total 7,238 out of 7,623 deaths has been in long term care and retirement residences. That is 94.9%, or 19 out of every 20. Of course, this raises the obvious questions such as the underlying health issues many or most would have had, or the average age.

FORECASTING
Canada’s approach to modelling:
Models cannot predict the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but can help us understand all possible scenarios, support decisions on public health measures and help the health care sector plan for these scenarios.
.
Forecasting models use data to estimate how many new cases can be expected in the coming weeks. Figure 17 below shows the projected number of cases and deaths in Canada, with a 95% prediction interval calculated to 8 November, using available data by 24 October.

The Government explicitly states that modelling cannot be used to predict the course. Then it immediately contradicts itself by saying models are used to estimate cases. Fact is: models are just guesses. They are not proof of anything.

9. PCR Tests Long Used For DNA Amplification

For some background, consider that PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction tests), have long been used for DNA amplification. This makes testing easier even when there are very small samples. Videos with extensive detail are freely available. These are just a few of them.

Note: Canuck Law owns none of these videos. Please post positive feedback on their respective YouTube accounts. They explain quite well how this process works.

10. Other Info On Silicon Valley/Theranos

Elizabeth Holmes was famous for several years as the result of her startup “Theranos”. The company was developing technology that would allow for hundreds (or even thousands) of tests to be done from a single drop of blood.

Problem is: the technology didn’t work, and never got any better. Holmes had been outright lying to investors and prospective clients for many years. The company is now dissolved. Strangely, its Twitter account is still up.

But sure, the Government is going to be able to get all kinds of results from a single drop of blood Well, they can get a DNA profile from that. And on the topic of Silicon Valley:

Anne Wojcicki is the CEO and co-founder of 23andMe. It uses home kits for DNA testing for genetic mapping. Her sister, Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube, co-founded Google, and is head of DuckDuckGo.

Also, Ancestry.com will hand over your DNA to law enforcement if they are ordered to.

Yes, this topic is a bit of a tangent, but it’s worth at least mentioning where this may go. Privacy of genetic information seems to be almost non-existent.

Statistics Canada is now mailing DNA kits to individual households. One can only guess where your data will eventually end up. Use at your own risk.

Posted on

Bill C-10; Censorship; Theresa Tam Openly Admits Social Media Collusion

What a goldmine this short video clip is. Theresa “the Apple” Tam openly admits that there is collusion on social media, (see 3:55), such as: (a) automatically forwarding searches to specific sites; (b) demonetizing certain accounts; and (c) algorithm manipulation to prevent certain information from being seen.

Tam also parrots the UNESCO narrative regarding misinformation. At 6:00, Tam asks people to create videos and testimonials promote the Covid narrative. At 7:00, Tam uses “Vaccine Confidence“, which is actually a global psychological effort to get people vaccinated.

And while Trudeau denies internment camps are being built, Brampton Mayor, a “conserative” Patrick Brown thanks people for receiving the funding to build an internment camp.
https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1325997706943352832

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. 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 “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 is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau/Tam casually admitting to censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Tam looking for ways to vaccinate more people.
CLICK HERE, for great censorship piece by INFORRM.ORG.
CLICK HERE, for social media firms “catching misinformation”.
CLICK HERE, for Dominic LeBlanc considering “misinformation” law.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-10 introduced in Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for openparliament.ca, Bill C-10 entry.

CLICK HERE, for Google censorship “keeping the public safe”.
CLICK HERE, for Google meeting Canadian Gov’t.
https://archive.is/2NNky
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for information on Twitter platform censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Twitter lobbying Canadian Government.
https://archive.is/L67ID

CLICK HERE, for Facebook promoting censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Facebook influence/lobbying Gov’t.
https://archive.is/3Mwny
WayBack Machine Archive

4. Tam: Duties For Social Media Companies

Tam and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Howard Njoo warned against misinformation about vaccine safety online and explained why social media giants have a role to play in sharing trusted material.

“This is the first pandemic in the age of the Internet and social media. This is an area of significant work because we have an overload of information through which many Canadians can’t sort out what is credible and what is not,” she said.

“I look towards different partners, government departments coming together to look at how we better address some of the myths and misinformation that is in that space. I think fundamentally it’s a massive challenge.”

The Statistics Canada report also shows that nearly 58 per cent of respondents said that they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a majority being 65 and older.

Theresa Tam openly says that social media has a role to play in advancing the vaccination agenda, and in countering information that contradicts the official narrative. Also, take a look into the issue of “vaccine hesitancy“, or vaccine confidence.

5. YouTube/Google Openly Censor Critics Online

Canuck Law was given a strike and had a video removed for contradicting the official narrative on YouTube. The video was based on Part 29 in the series: lies of public health officials. As such, it has become clear that real discussion on the platform will never be permitted.

If you’re posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
.
Treatment Misinformation: Discourages someone from seeking medical treatment by encouraging the use of cures or remedies to treat COVID-19.
.
-Claims that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that people do not die from it
-Content that encourages the use of home remedies in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
-Content that encourages the use of prayer or rituals in place of medical treatment
-Content that claims that a vaccine for coronavirus is available or that there’s a guaranteed cure
-Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
-Content that claims that any currently-available medicine prevents you from getting the coronavirus
-Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
-Prevention Misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Diagnostic Misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Transmission Misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
.
-Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
-Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
-Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
-Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
-Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19

Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes context that gives equal or greater weight to countervailing views from local health authorities or to medical or scientific consensus. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn or dispute misinformation that violates our policies. This context must appear in the images or audio of the video itself. Providing it in the title or description is insufficient.

Examples
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
.
–Denial that COVID-19 exists
-Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
-Claims that there’s a guaranteed vaccine for COVID-19
-Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
-Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
-Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
-Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
-Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
-Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
-Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus
-Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
-Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
-Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
-Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
-Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it

These are the rules that YouTube (which is actually owned by Google), now have in place. The actual truth or research of the videos are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether or not it contradicts the official narrative.

Google, the parent company of YouTube, has been meeting with Federal officials for a variety of issues, including media manipulation regarding the “pandemic”.

6. Twitter Censorship, Meeting With Gov’t

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

New labels and warnings
.
During active conversations about disputed issues, it can be helpful to see additional context from trusted sources. Earlier this year, we introduced a new label for Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media. Similar labels will now appear on Tweets containing potentially harmful, misleading information related to COVID-19. This will also apply to Tweets sent before today.

Twitter has updated their policies a few times this year, but it falls along the same idea as YouTube: information that openly contradicts the official position and recommendation of the World Health Organization and its proxies is at risk of being censored.

People like Theresa Tam and Justin Trudeau aren’t alarmed at the blatant censorship going on in the online sphere. On the contrary, they fully support it, as it undermines attempts to disprove their claims.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act and make related and consequential amendments to other acts
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.

Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how social media companies create their own rules and policies.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.

Twitter has also been meeting with the Federal Government on issues such as Bill C-10, and regulating online content. This screams of efforts to crack down on free speech and censor unpleasant truth.

7. Facebook Censorship/Collusion Over Covid

Ever since COVID-19 was declared a global public health emergency in January, we’ve been working to connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading on our apps.

We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center and pop-ups on Facebook and Instagram with over 350 million people clicking through to learn more.

But connecting people to credible information is only half the challenge. Stopping the spread of misinformation and harmful content about COVID-19 on our apps is also critically important. That’s why we work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review and rate content in more than 50 languages around the world. In the past month, we’ve continued to grow our program to add more partners and languages. Since the beginning of March, we’ve added eight new partners and expanded our coverage to more than a dozen new countries. For example, we added MyGoPen in Taiwan, the AFP and dpa in the Netherlands, Reuters in the UK, and others.

Facebook is quite open about the fact that they are trying to alter the narrative and prop up official versions of events. They also have no qualms about censoring so-called “misinformation”.

Facebook has also been meeting with the Federal Government, on a variety of issues. It would be nice to actually have the minutes of these meetings, not just a vague description.

8. CBC Promotes Limiting Free Speech

Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation online because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some critics say they could still do more.

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube have ramped up their efforts to police content that contains incorrect or harmful information, taking down the worst offenders, attaching warnings to content that has been fact-checked and linking to official sources, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada.

That includes posts such as a viral video by an American doctor on disciplinary probation in which he claims 5G technology causes coronavirus (it does not) or a false post implying the Canadian Armed Forces were in Toronto, but which turned out to be a photo of a tank taken during a festival in 2016.

On Thursday, Facebook said it has attached warnings to 40 million posts about COVID-19, and that 95 per cent of the time, users did not click through to see the content. Twitter says it has taken down over 2,000 tweets related to COVID-19 and “challenged” 2.8 million accounts, which can mean limiting who sees certain tweets, requiring a tweet to be removed or placing a warning on tweets that violate rules but are in the public interest to leave up.

This should alarm people. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all decided what shall constitute the truth, and are intentionally limiting access to information that doesn’t fit the narrative. Let’s not forget that the Liberals are considering laws to ban what they call “misinformation”.

9. Trudeau/Erin O’Toole Both Compromised

Trudeau: His Chief-Of-Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver, co-founder of Crestview Strategy. Crestview has long lobbied for GAVI (which is Gates funded). Andrew Scheer was also lobbied by GAVI.

O’Toole: His Chief-Of-Staff, Walied, Soliman, is a director for Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto (which is also Gates funded).

Also: Erin O’Toole, who is currently the head of the Conservative Party of Canada, was previously a lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blakie. Blakie is the now defunct law firm which Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both worked at.

10. Bill C-10: Online Censorship, Licensing

In early February, Steven Guilbeault, the Heritage Minister announced that the Government wanted mandate that all media outlets to have a license. He (sort of) backtracked after a public backlash. While this may have just been viewed as a tax grab at the time, it takes on a whole new look in light of the censorship attitude in this “pandemic”.

It’s official: Bill C-10 has now been introduced in the House of Commons. It’s been marketed as an effort to force media giants to spend money on Canadian content. Let’s take a look.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Part (b) would require providers to pander to all groups under the sun, although not aiming content at Europeans would probably be considered okay.

Does (i) specify that online content (such as videos and websites) would be excluded from any media licensing requirement?

Although the Government (now) says specifically that news outlets would be exempt from being required to get a license, one has to wonder if this will actually be the case. It’s also unclear if access to social media will be limited to only the approved parties. After all, they seem pretty pro censorship. As with many things, the devil is in the details.

Bill C-10 deserves a stand-alone piece, which will be coming soon. This hardly does it justice.

11. “Misinformation-Fighting” Efforts Online

https://pledgetopause.org/
https://www.shareverified.com/en
https://en.unesco.org/fightfakenews

A few of the sites popping up to stop people from asking the questions that need to be asked.

12. Will IHR Make Censorship Mandatory?

Risk communication and community engagement
-Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
-Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
-Work with partners and countries to articulate potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for strengthened cross-sectoral preparedness, transparency and global coordination.

The International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are legally binding. Considering that WHO supports efforts to “combat misinformation”, one has to wonder if laws to censor certain views will be imposed.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress