Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

IBC #7: Debt For Nature Swaps, Usury & Exploitation Masked As Compassion

Some background information on how this process works (in theory at least). See here and here. Does it matter that many countries are unable to repay their loans? To the creditors, not really, as there is always another way.

These “swaps” involve selling a country’s debt (at a discount) to a 3rd party, but one who has its own agenda.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And check out the climate change hoax as well, as the 2 now seem intertwined.

New Development Financing, a bait-and-switch.

2. Important Links

UN New Development Finance Paper
UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

UNDP Explaining Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum, debt swap support.
https://archive.is/LTw1r

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

CLICK HERE, for World Wildlife Fund Climate fund page.
https://archive.is/43sHz

3. Debt Used As A Weapon Against Nations

This cannot be emphasized enough. Countries take foreign loans in times when they are desperate, and often are unable to meet the terms to pay them back. This is a form of predatory lending. What may end up happening is that those debts are sold to people and organizations who have their own agenda.

And where do these loans originate in the first place? Many are (debt financed) by countries like Canada, the U.S., and in Europe. Western nations — who use private parties to borrow money from — borrow money which is then handed over as loans to the 3rd World. Those loans are distributed to countries who can’t pay them back. They are then forced into options like debt-for-nature.

4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps

Debt swaps can be one solution to tackle both challenges at once. Traditionally, these instruments represent an exchange of the existing debt contract with a new one, where the previous contract is normally “written down”, or discounted. Usually, this action is associated with specific conditions for investments, agreed both by the creditor and the debtor. In the past, such instruments have also been used to achieve climate-related objectives.

The idea of a “debt-for-climate” swap was first conceived during the 1980s by the then Deputy Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, Thomas Lovejoy, in the wake of the Latin American debt crisis. The idea was simple: an NGO would act as a donor, purchasing debt from commercial banks at its face value on the secondary market, hence providing a level of relief on the debt’s value. The title of the debt would then be transferred to the debtor country in exchange for a specific commitment to environmental or conservation goals, performed through a national environmental fund.

In 2018, the Seychelles government worked with The Nature Conservancy, Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop a debt-for-nature swap for $27 million of official debt, to set up vast areas of protected marine parks for climate resilience, fishery management, biodiversity conservation and ecotourism.

This came out just the other day. The World Economic Forum, which pushed for a declaration of a pandemic also goes on about how this can be used to advance the green agenda. But don’t worry, it’s not preplanned or anything.

5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences

Cons
.
-DNS have only resulted in relatively small amounts of debt relief, limiting their impact in reducing developing countries’ debt burden;
–Transaction costs might be high compared to other financing instruments; negotiations can be time-consuming, spanning several years and might result in limited debt reduction or discount rates. The length of the design and negotiation phase of a DNS can span one to three years, mostly depending on the willingness of the parties and the complexity of the deal.

Risks
.
-Lengthy negotiations. Disagreement between the creditor and debtor country on conservation goals or other details of the agreement can increase the costs of the operation.
–Currency exchange risks, the impact of which (and the response strategy) is dependent on the financial structure of the DNS. The currency risk can be mitigated, for example, by making payments in local currency at the spot rate on the day payments are due. In the latter case the risk is lower for the entity managing the DNS cash flow.
–Inflation risks, the value of future payments in local currencies might be highly by inflation. Mitigation strategies to inflation risks are similar to the ones for currency exchange risks.
-The DNS might prevent the possibility of negotiating a more comprehensive and favourable debt treatment (debt relief and restructuring).
-The debtor-country might not be able or willing to respect its commitments. Fiscal and liquidity crises can undermine the capacity of the debtor-government to meet its obligations.
-Management risks related to the capacity of the fund selected to administer grants from the DNS proceeds, including mismanagement, corruption and failures in the identification of good projects to be financed.
-While rarely reported, it is possible that the projects financed might create discontent in local communities (e.g. removal of access to resources by local communities).
-ODA substitution (no additionality). While a DNS is an option for increasing ODA, it might just substitute for other committed flows.
-The debtor-country may lose sovereignty in deciding about the spending of public resources. Grants may be disbursed according to donors’ preferences, which in turn might or might not better mirror local conservation needs. In most DNS the debtor-government decides in agreement with the creditor(s) about the modalities of funds’ disbursements, both participating in the boards of the trust fund responsible for grant-making.
-Debt swaps may be tied to the purchase of goods or services for the creditor(s).

There are an awful lot of drawbacks to getting involved with this sort of loan. Specifically, countries cede their sovereignty, are forced into conditions they don’t like, and it may not even result in much of a debt reduction.

6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps

The first debt-for-nature agreement (Bolivia) was the only one in which land was set aside, and development restrictions adopted, as a result of the agreement. This deal was extremely controversial at first, as many Bolivians thought that the country had relinquished sovereignty to the international environmental group. There is, however, no transfer of land ownership, and development decisions are not based on agreements between the local environmental groups, the government, and the regional population. The Bolivian government has been slow in dispersing the local currency funds, and controversies have arisen over the development use of the buffer areas.

Finally, prior to the debt-for-nature concept, environmental groups had little or no direct contact with either commercial banks or debt countries’ finance ministers. Debt-for-nature swaps, however, have entailed intense negotiations between all three groups, leading to a network of relationships that may prove valuable to international environmental groups beyond simply debt-for-nature agreements.

Much of the interest in using official debt for debt-for-development swaps first began as a result of the 1988 Toronto Economic Summit, in which the G-7 countries established guidelines that allowed Paris Club Creditors to forgive debt to the poorest of the Sub-Saharan countries. One of three options given to Paris Club creditors was to forgive up to one-third of the debt of the developing country (with the other two being extended maturities and lower interest rates). France has generally chosen the first option, while the United States (until July 1989) has been reluctant to forgive debt.

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

This scheme has been going back many decades. The basic principle is that countries are loaned money they cannot realistically afford to pay back. Loans are then forgiven — or reduced — but with strings attached. One such arrangement is the debt-for nature swaps.

Although the land isn’t officially ceded, for all practical purposes it is.

7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles

In 2017, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation helped finance a debt-for-nature swap with the Republic of Seychelles to set aside some 400,000 square kilometers of water for conservation.

8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance

Debt-for-Nature Swaps
WWF has worked with the U.S., French, German, Dutch, and other creditor countries to structure foreign debt-for-nature swaps, including the first one in Ecuador in 1987. Since 2001, WWF has helped design several debt-for-nature swap agreements under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (and previously under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative). Both mechanisms were formed to relieve the debt burden of developing countries owed to the U.S. government, while generating funds in local currency to support tropical forest conservation activities. Capital raised through debt-for-nature swaps can be applied through trust funds or foundations specifically set up to channel funding to local biodiversity conservation.

Carbon Finance
WWF believes that carbon finance, if used appropriately, will play a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to biodiversity conservation, and promoting a range of local economic and social values. WWF is developing pilot carbon projects in Peru, Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesia and Nepal to capitalize on the rapidly growing potential for carbon finance. We contribute to these efforts by securing private and public financing for carbon projects and providing technical support to implement carbon finance mechanisms.

The World Wildlife Fund is quite involved in financing the nature-for-debt swaps. Should make Canadians wonder what is the real reason Trudeau and Butts present themselves as eco-warriors.

9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Gerald Butts was once the President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. This conflict of interest isn’t limited to the Liberals though.

Megan Leslie used to be the Deputy NDP Leader, and was Deputy Opposition Leader for a time. Now, this Trudeau Foundation Director is also the head of the World Wildlife Fund.

It’s also worth a mention that Elizabeth May, the former Green Party Leader is also with the Trudeau Foundation. She was, at a time, Head of Sierra Club Canada. At least 3 of the major Federal parties are compromised, and in bed with the eco-lobby.

10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada

To see a little deeper just how many tentacles the Trudeau Foundation has, see these connections between the House of Commons, the Senate, the Courts and the media. Truly disgusting.

11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism

Despite what is said publicly, there is nothing compassionate about what is happening. Countries are taking loans they can’t pay back, and are forced to cede sovereignty in order to “service the debt”. Not at all what we are led to believe.

Posted on

IBC #6(C): Bank For International Settlements And Green Bonds

This is from a few years ago, but worth addressing again: the central banks are fully on board with the climate change agenda, and with the green bonds agenda.

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is supposed to concern itself with fiscal policies. However, it has branched off into the climate change agenda and green bonds. This has nothing to do with its stated mandate, and is therefore, an important topic. Not a lot of evidence this even works, but who cares?

1. Green Bonds First Launched By World Bank

10 years ago, The World Bank issued the first-ever green bond then laid out the first blueprint for sustainable fixed income investing, transforming development finance and sparking a sustainability revolution in the capital markets. Green bonds have become a strategic priority for The World Bank as they support all Sustainable Development Goals. Watch this video to learn about the investors, evaluator, and Treasury behind the first green bond and how it turned into a $12 billion World Bank program 10 years later.

The green bonds industry was the first organized by the World Bank. It has expanded greatly over the last decade.

2. Green Bonds Potentially $100T Industry

In the Summer of 2019, the International Economic Forum of the Americas was held in Montreal. Several speakers discussed the rapid growth of the climate bonds, or green bonds industry. One predicted to be eventually become a $100 trillion industry.

3. BIS Mission Statement Excludes Green Agenda

BIS mission statement
Excellence in service to central banks and financial authorities
.
The BIS
.
-aims at promoting monetary and financial stability;
-acts as a forum for discussion and cooperation among central banks and the financial community; and
-acts as a bank to central banks and international organisations,

Strange, there seems to be no mention of using its power and influence to enact social change, and to facilitate the climate change agenda. Perhaps an oversight.

4. Green Bonds Already 3.5% Of Bond Market

Interest in green bonds and green finance – commonly defined as the financing of investments that provide environmental benefits (G20 GFSG (2016)) – has been increasing rapidly. Financial instruments that contribute to environmental sustainability have become a priority for many issuers, asset managers and governments alike. In particular, the market for green bonds has been growing fast. Global issuance surpassed $250 billion in 2019 – about 3.5% of total global bond issuance ($7.15 trillion).

Private institutions have developed green bond certifications and standards that grant issuers a green label if individual projects are deemed sufficiently in line with the Green Bond Principles (GBPs) of the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), and the use of proceeds can be ascertained.

A key issue for both policymakers and investors is whether existing certifications and standards result in the desired environmental impact (The Economist (2020)). While the GBPs define a broader range of environmental benefits, this special feature focuses on one particular aim: low and decreasing carbon emissions.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, so-called green bonds are exploding in popularity, and already make up over $250 billion of the total bond market, or about 3.5% overall. It’s unclear how any of this actually contributes to a cleaner environment, or combats climate change.

It’s disturbing how much money can be generated (or lost) on this industry. This 3.5% share is only expected to grow.

5. BIS: Climate Change Threatens Finances

Climate change poses new challenges to central banks, regulators and supervisors. This book reviews ways of addressing these new risks within central banks’ financial stability mandate. However, integrating climate-related risk analysis into financial stability monitoring is particularly challenging because of the radical uncertainty associated with a physical, social and economic phenomenon that is constantly changing and involves complex dynamics and chain reactions. Traditional backward-looking risk assessments and existing climate-economic models cannot anticipate accurately enough the form that climate-related risks will take. These include what we call “green swan” risks: potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis. Central banks have a role to play in avoiding such an outcome, including by seeking to improve their understanding of climate-related risks through the development of forward-looking scenario-based analysis. But central banks alone cannot mitigate climate change. This complex collective action problem requires coordinating actions among many players including governments, the private sector, civil society and the international community. Central banks can therefore have an additional role to play in helping coordinate the measures to fight climate change. Those include climate mitigation policies such as carbon pricing, the integration of sustainability into financial practices and accounting frameworks, the search for appropriate policy mixes, and the development of new financial mechanisms at the international level. All these actions will be complex to coordinate and could have significant redistributive consequences that should be adequately handled, yet they are essential to preserve long-term financial (and price) stability in the age of climate change.

In a nutshell, this is BIS’ official reason for getting involved in the climate change industry, and into gree bonds: it threatens fiscal stability. But they have certainly found a profitable way to “stave off” this oncoming disaster. Very convenient.

6. Scaling Up: The Green/Banking Marriage

The four recommendations addressed to central banks and supervisors are:
.
(1) Integrating climate-related risks into financial stability monitoring and micro-supervision. This includes assessing climate-related risks in the financial system and integrating them into prudential supervision.
(2) Integrating sustainability factors into own portfolio management. The NGFS encourages central banks to lead by example in their own operations.
(3) Bridging data gaps. Public authorities are asked to share data relevant to Climate Risk Assessment and make these data publicly available.
(4) Building awareness and intellectual capacity and encouraging technical assistance and knowledge-sharing. The NGFS encourages all financial institutions to build in-house capacity and to collaborate to improve their understanding of how climate-related factors translate into financial risks and opportunities.

What is suggested here is nothing short of a full fledged marriage of the banking cartel and the climate cartel. Elements of the green agenda are to be embedded in every aspect of fiscal policies. This (shouldn’t) be what banks and bankers are involved with.

7. Bonds Are An “Investment” With No Real Product

It was interesting to see this “explanation” of climate bonds, which included vague references to “green industries”. No concrete examples were provided, nor was there any mention of the industries that would be lost as a result of this agenda.

This bonds scheme (like a Ponzi Scheme) only works as long as it is able to continuously get new funding. That won’t work, as eventually people realize this is a scam, and pulls their funds.

At 9:50, there is the not so subtle threat: change your business model, or go out of business. Former Bank of Canada Head Mark Carney (currently doing UN Climate Finance), said exactly the same thing. This isn’t opportunity, but the FORCED transition or shut down of many industries.

8. Green Bonds Already In Canada A While

If you thought this nonsense would never become a reality in Canada, you would be mistaken. Ontario has been issuing green bonds for several years, and it has continued under “populist” Doug Ford. It’s been happening Federally since at least 2014, when “conservative” Stephen Harper ran Canada. TD Canada appears to also have gotten in on the action.

Ontario and Canada aren’t doing anything revolutionary. They are just implementing what the World Bank started, and what the Bank for International Settlements is upscaling.

9. Bonds To Stabilize Financial System?

Although the idea of Green Bonds is not specifically mentioned in this BIS video, read between the lines. They talk about “alternative means” to stabilize economies after the 2008 collapse. BIS also refers to Green Bonds as necessary for fiscal stability. Two problems, one solution?

Cartel Marriage Shouldn’t Happen

The Bank for International Settlements offers the flimsiest of rationales for getting involved in the climate change and green bonds agendas.

While the idea that this aids fiscal stability, BIS never explains “how” exactly that is. It doesn’t delve into any of the many climate questions that need answered, nor does it explain how these bonds prevent climate change. BIS also won’t discuss how enriching a very few leads to overall equality.

It comes across as an attempt to (further) monetize the climate agenda, and to embed elements of it within national banking policies. As if national finances weren’t corrupt enough.

Canadians, and others, need to wake up to the collusion that continues to erode sovereignty. Do some research. The information presented above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on

Canada’s Actions Were Dictated By WHO’s Legally Binding IHR

The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Canada has been following the legally binding dictates of the World Health Organization and their International Health Regulations. Let’s see what some of them are.

Videos are here and here.

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. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: 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 (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for International Health Regulations Archives.

CLICK HERE, for January 23 Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/MapcO

CLICK HERE, for January 30 Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/OjFyN

CLICK HERE, for May 1 IHR Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/Y3pTe

CLICK HERE, for August 1 IHR Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/JgR3A

CLICK HERE, for November 4, 2004 Quarantine Act hearings.
November 4 2004 Quarantine Act Evidence HESAEV06-E

quarantine.act.dec.8.2004.hearings

3. January 23 Statement (1st IHR Meeting)

To other countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.

Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.

Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.

January 23, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

4. January 30 Statement (2nd IHR Meeting)

To all countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoVinfection, and to share full data with WHO. Technical advice is available on the WHO website.

Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR.

Any detection of 2019-nCoV in an animal (including information about the species, diagnostic tests, and relevant epidemiological information) should be reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as an emerging disease.

Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread, and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research.

The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.

Countries must inform WHO about travel measures taken, as required by the IHR. Countries are cautioned against actions that promote stigma or discrimination, in line with the principles of Article 3 of the IHR.

Under Article 43 of the IHR, States Parties implementing additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic (refusal of entry or departure of international travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, and the like, or their delay, for more than 24 hours) are obliged to send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation. WHO will review the justification and may request countries to reconsider their measures. WHO is required to share with other States Parties the information about measures and the justification received.

January 30, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

5. May 1 Statement (3rd IHR Meeting)

The WHO Regional Emergency Directors and the Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) provided regional and the global situation overview. After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered advice to the Director-General.

The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.

The Emergency Committee will be reconvened within three months or earlier, at the discretion of the Director-General. The Director-General thanked the Committee for its work.

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.

Travel and Trade
Continue working with countries and partners to enable essential travel needed for pandemic response, humanitarian relief, repatriation, and cargo operations.
.
Develop strategic guidance with partners for the gradual return to normal operations of passenger travel in a coordinated manner that provides appropriate protection when physical distancing is not feasible.

May 1, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

6. August 1 Statement (4th IHR Meeting)

After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the pandemic still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern and offered advice to the Director-General.
.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR (2005).

(6) Continue to work with partners to counter mis/disinformation and infodemics by developing and disseminating clear, tailored messaging on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects; encourage and support individuals and communities to follow recommended public health and social measures.

(7) Support diagnostics, safe and effective therapeutics and vaccines’ rapid and transparent development (including in developing countries) and equitable access through the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator; support all countries to implement the necessary clinical trials and to prepare for the rollout of therapeutics and vaccines.

(8) Work with partners to revise WHO’s travel health guidance to reinforce evidence-informed measures consistent with the provisions of the IHR (2005) to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel; proactively and regularly share information on travel measures to support State Parties’ decision-making for resuming international travel.

August 1, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

7. Quarantine Act Is Domestic IHR Implementation

Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: How is the communication now between different levels of government–for example, the federal government and the provinces–when something occurs?
.
(1140)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The communication between the agency and the chief medical officers, for example, has always been good. The challenge during SARS was not necessarily the communication, but the information that was available to communicate.
.
The ability of Ontario to collect information, for example, to analyse it, and then for us to get it and to share it internationally was a challenge. That’s certainly something that Ontario and the Government of Canada have recognized, and as a result of that, other jurisdictions have recognized that as well.
.
We’ve certainly taken note of the lessons from SARS and the Naylor report. We’re always trying to improve that communication, but then, as I said, we are dependent on the abilities of other jurisdictions.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: All right. I thought that was important, to see the different communications between each level, provincial and federal, but also international, because it seems that this is such a global thing right now.

Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.
.
(1200)

Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.
.
The Chair: Thank you.
.
Ms. Skelton.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Following up on what Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Carrie said, it says in subclause 5(1) that the minister may “designate persons, or classes of persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers”. I think we should have in the act who those people are, so that they make sure they are trained professionals.
,
(1210)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I believe that’s defined under the quarantine officer. At least in part, the quarantine officer refers to a medical practitioner or other health practitioner.
.
The reason for distinguishing between the three is that the screening officers would not require much training as the quarantine officers, as we defined. For an environmental officer, if it’s not defined, the implication is…. The quarantine officers are in subclause 5(2). I don’t believe, in fact, we’ve defined the qualifications of an environmental health officer, and maybe we should think about that. I think the term in this country, the use of the term “environmental health officer”, does imply some training, but I take your point.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/meeting-6/evidence

7. WHO Actually Governs Quarantines In Canada

Get it now? The 2005 Quarantine Act was Ottawa domestically implementing the latest edition of the International Health Regulations, or at least what what the changes were anticipated to be.

Restricting international travel (or not in this case), contact tracing, and efforts to shut down what they call “misinformation” are all done at the behest of the World Health Organization.

In fact, the Federal Government doesn’t run the show, nor do the Provinces. As part of our membership with WHO, Canada is legally obligated to follow the IHR.

Posted on

UNESCO Continues Crackdown On What It Calls “Misinformation”

UNESCO is still pushing efforts to combat “misinformation”, which of course is anything that conflicts with the official versions of events (the ever shifting versions). However, you aren’t supposed to notice such inconsistencies or gaps in logic.

UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources.

1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. For background information for this, see: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, and Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

This article is Part I for UNESCO agenda.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For example: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing. The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Sept 8 UNESCO article on “misinformation”.
https://archive.is/wbkP1

CLICK HERE, for $27M in research projects announced.
https://archive.is/uGjO6

CLICK HERE, for Ryerson gets $478,000 grant to study CV misinfo.
https://archive.is/Rjq9y
CLICK HERE
https://archive.is/qguDf

CLICK HERE, for UN Global Pulse mainpage.
https://archive.is/BGVUo
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Pulse policy page.
https://archive.is/Gg1l3

CLICK HERE, for International Telecommunication Union.
https://archive.is/tJjKD
ITU-COVID-19-activities

CLICK HERE, for UNESCO, and fighting fake news.
https://archive.is/JFCrx

CLICK HERE, for WHO, and reporting misinformation online.
https://archive.is/BC3ql

CLICK HERE, for UN “Verified” program.
CLICK HERE, for ShareVerified website.

4. Decisions On CV/Masks/Vaccines

2015 ONA Arbitration Ruling (Sault Area Hospital)
2015.ontario.college.of.nurses.mask.ruling

2016 ONA Arbitration Ruling (William Osler Health System)
2016.ona.masks.or.vaccinate.ruling

2018 ONA Arbitration Ruling (St. Michael’s Hospital)
2018.ontario.college.of.nurses.mask.ruling

2020 BC Ombudsman Ruling
2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

Oregon Court Rules Against Measures
Oregon SHIRTCLIFF ORDER

Wisconsin Court Says “Stay At Home” Orders Illegal
wisconson.may.2020.coronavirus.order.overturned

2020 Pennsylvania Judge rules against Governor
pennsylvania.covid.measures.illegal

The above 7 rulings are helpful to our cause. However, this recent one in Newfoundland and Labrador is a potential setback, as the Judge ruled travel restrictions are justified.

September 2020 NFLD Rules Travel Ban Justified
Justice-Donald-Burrage-decision-on-NL-travel-ban

I wonder if UNESCO would consider it “misinformation” to post about the several rulings with conflict with the official narratives of lockdowns, masks, and vaccinations.

scotus.allows.nevada.to.discriminate

scotus.allows.california.to.discriminate

scotus.on.religious.advertising

Finally, a few American rulings on enshrining freedom of religion in the face of a false pandemic. Unfortunately, these don’t really help the cause.

5. UNESCO Article On CV Misinformation

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be better able to spot the difference between information and misinformation about COVID-19, as a result of a new co-operation within the UN system.

The co-operation is supported by a grant of $4.5m from the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund.

The fund was specifically set up to support work to track and understand the spread of the virus; ensure patients get the care they need and frontline workers get essential supplies and information; and accelerate research and development of a vaccine and treatments for all who need them.

For UNESCO, the contribution to the partnership will be in training journalists and supporting community radio.

Thousands of journalists will be trained for updated reporting on the pandemic and related disinformation through a series of online interactive briefings with experts and mentors.

UNESCO will also work with partners to produce content for radio channels, particularly in vernacular languages for areas with scarce or no Internet access, with the topic covering preventive measures, debunking myths about the virus, and highlighting the importance of non-discrimination and solidarity.

Part of the package will be training on how to operate a home-based radio studio during lockdown.

WHO, through its offices in Africa, is developing an “Infodemic Response Alliance” that will bring together ministries of health, civil society, media, fact checkers and UN actors to ensure early warnings of misinformation. Other WHO activities are planned in the Eastern Mediterranean, European, the Americas, and South East Asia regions.

Besides UNESCO and the WHO, the other UN partners include UN Global Pulse and the ITU (The International Telecommunication Union).

The UN Global Pulse, within the UN Secretary-General’s innovation team, will use artificial intelligence to analyse radio coverage for trends in misinformation such as rumours around vaccines, promotions of false cures, and discussions about financial hardships. “We will use this infodemic intelligence to support community level responses and do predictive analytics to fuel decision making across all pillars of the UN response,” says Global Pulse’s chief data scientist Miguel Luengo-Oroz.

The ITU will engage with more than 200 mobile network operators to use short message service (SMS) and voice messages to provide healthcare advice. “We will also share good practices such as replacing default ringtones with special caller tunes containing voice messages about the virus,” says ITU’s Roman Chestnov.

As part of the project, WHO will create an Infodemic Observatory with the Fondazione Bruno Kessler as well as a suite of scientific tools to manage the infodemic, including through “social listening” and assessing people’s vulnerability to misinformation.

The UN’s Health Organization will also initiate a pilot project with Ryerson University in Canada to create a “Global Misinformation and Factchecking Centre” to serve as a comprehensive public repository of fact-checking organizations around the world and to identify and document best practices for tackling the COVID-19 infodemic crisis and help to inform future policy interventions.

Yes, that is the entire September 8, 2020 article, quoted verbatim. Nothing has been added to alter its meaning. It’s difficult to make UNESCO look worse than it already does, but let’s try.

6. Canada Takes Grant Applications In February

Even as the Canadian Government was telling public in February that there was nothing to worry about, it was shoveling out millions in grants money. There were at least a few grants designed to “study and counter” misinformation. Ottawa knew even then that this would last a long time, but lied about it.

7. Ryerson Uni Gets CV Misinformation Grant

TORONTO — As the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to spread across the world, so too does the flow of information and misinformation related to the virus. In a recent announcement by the Government of Canada, researchers at Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management and Royal Roads University will collaborate to examine the spread of digital misinformation related to the coronavirus. The study seeks to mitigate the spread of misinformation, stigma and fear through education.

The study, Inoculating Against an Infodemic: Microlearning Interventions to Address CoV Misinformation, will be a two-year study that aims to develop online learning interventions to improve people’s knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to COVID-19.

Professor Anatoliy Gruzd, Canada Research Chair of Social Media Data Stewardship and Philip Mai, Director of Business and Communications at the Social Media Lab at the Ted Rogers School, will examine how COVID-19 related misinformation propagates across social media platforms and will be developing a real-time information dashboard that will help the public track efforts to debunk coronavirus misinformation online.

It’s disturbing that the Government of Canada (taxpayers, really) decided to give a University almost half a million dollars to combat misinformation. Worse still, are 2 details:

First, this was March 12 the article went off. The deal had already been inked, and Canada hadn’t even officially declared a pandemic yet. Almost like they knew in advance.

Second, this study was to last 2 years. The Canadian Government knew before March 12, 2020, that this “pandemic” would last for at least 2 years.

8. UN Global Pulse, AI Implementation

UN Global Pulse leads efforts to develop data privacy, protection and ethics principles, engages privacy specialists and regulators to contribute to policy frameworks for the use of big data, and works with governments to facilitate synergies and knowledge exchange to create strategies for the ethical use of artificial intelligence. The areas of work that our policy agenda focuses on are:

Data Privacy & Protection
UN Global Pulse advocates for the accountable and responsible use of data and provides expertise to UN partners and to governments in developing data privacy and data protection frameworks.

AI Ethics
UN Global Pulse promotes human rights-based AI innovation through the development of standards and guidelines to ensure a safe and equitable digital future.

Digital Cooperation
UN Global Pulse works to foster global digital cooperation and realize the potential of digital technologies to advance human well-being and mitigate the risks of misuse and missed use of data and artificial intelligence.

All of this sounds completely harmless, but then, it always does.

So-called “digital cooperation” is actually a reference to a subgroup at the United Nations, who is working towards global internet governance. Global Pulse works with AI, supports digital cooperation, and is involved in efforts to combat “misinformation” online. What could possibly go wrong?

9. International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

ITU-COVID-19-activities

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, digital technologies and connectivity have become a critical enabler facilitating business continuity and connecting people more than ever before. The sudden increase in internet usage and upsurge in data consumption are putting heavy pressure on existing broadband networks decreasing the quality and speed of the Internet. We are also confronted with increased opportunity for digital technology’s potential for misuse – from cyberattacks and crimes to misinformation, as well as burgeoning issues related to data privacy and security. Most importantly, as 46% of the global population/almost 3.6. billion people are still without internet, the lack of connectivity and issues of accessibility will become even more pressing: translating directly into missed socio-economic opportunities and missed learning opportunities, and so widening the digital divide and inequality gap in our society.

This Webinar series started with a discussion on assessing current connectivity gaps and challenges in different regions, followed by best practices and success connectivity stories; capacity building (to implement misinformation management); online safety and security, with a final discussion session on how to balance public health, privacy and human rights. Each session was prepared and organized jointly by strategic partners, including leading UN agencies on action to address the subject matter.

The ITU also has a very long section on “digital cooperation”. Again, this is code for global governance of the internet. The ITU, Global Pulse, and the United Nations as a whole seem to be completely for this agenda.

10. UNESCO, Journalist “Training” On Pandemic

Yes, UNESCO is actually training journalists on combatting misinformation around this “pandemic”. In short, only official sources can be trusted.

11. WHO On Reporting Misinformation

The World Health Organization actually provides guidelines on how to report what it calls “misinformation”, on common social media platforms.

12. UN ‘Verified’ Initiative Flood Digital Space

https://twitter.com/UN/status/1263499796016435202
https://archive.is/LzGVz

28 May 2020 — As the world unifies amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations recently launched ‘Verified’ — an initiative aimed at delivering trusted information, life-saving advice and stories from the best of humanity. The initiative also invites the public to help counter the spread of COVID-19 misinformation by sharing fact-based advice with their communities.

Melissa Fleming: Verified is a United Nations initiative that calls on people around the world to become “information volunteers” and share UN-verified, science-based content to keep their families and communities safe and connected. You can sign up to become “information volunteers” at www.shareverified.com.

The initiative is a collaboration with Purpose, one of the world’s leading social mobilization organizations, and supported by the IKEA Foundation and Luminate. Led by the UN Department for Global Communications, the Verified initiative will produce a daily feed of compelling, shareable content around three themes: science – to save lives; solidarity – to promote local and global cooperation; and solutions – to advocate support for impacted populations. It will also promote recovery packages that tackle the climate crisis and address the root causes of poverty, inequality and hunger. Our priority audience: those who are being targeted with misinformation. We are also partnering with First Draft, an organization which closely monitors the spread of misinformation.

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis

13. Silencing Legitimate Criticisms

Make no mistake. This isn’t any well intentioned effort to prevent serious harm from coming to the public. Instead, this is about coordination to PREVENT THE EXPOSURE of harmful efforts, and to show the truth to the world.

This is censorship, masked as public safety.

Posted on

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

Getting your own politicians to protect free speech is difficult enough. How does it work when the rules are being drafted by unelected officials in other countries?

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter, big tech collusion in coronavirus, and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

IF you think that Canadian laws don’t do enough to protect free speech in general, or online free speech more specifically, just wait until it is regulated globally.

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

2006: Athens, Greece, https://archive.is/g2NnZ
2007: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, https://archive.is/uiFsE
2008: Hyderabad, India, https://archive.is/6rV0k
2009: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, https://archive.is/dS2SO
2010: Vilnius, Lithuania, https://archive.is/uzC3U
2011: Nairobi, Kenya, https://archive.is/Dl71r
2012: Baku, Azerbaijan, https://archive.is/XUDaX
2013: Bali, Indonesia, https://archive.is/wksxQ
2014: Istanbul, Turkey, https://archive.is/XKnUe
2015: João Pessoa, Brazil, https://archive.is/1CiSE
2016: Jalisco, Mexico, https://archive.is/Rkazl
2017: Geneva, Switzerland, https://archive.is/mtw6w
2018: Paris, France, https://archive.is/zEsjK
2019: Berlin, Germany, https://archive.is/KGwzo

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

What Key Issues are discussed at the IGF?
As an example, key issues discussed at the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017 include:
.
– The impact of modern technologies on industry, society, and the economy;
– Multistakeholderism and Multilateralism and the setting of global norms;
– The new digital economy & sustainable development — providing opportunities or deepening divides?
– The role of government in policy making in the digital age;
– The emergence of a global, Internet society;
– Cybersecurity and cyber-threats;
– Artificial intelligence (AI);
– Critical Internet resources;
– Blockchains and bitcoins;
– Fake news;
– Access, inclusion and diversity;
– The pressing need for security in the Internet of Things;
– Digital divides;

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Advocates of strong free speech laws will notice (in particular) the topics of the role of government, and fake news. Makes one wonder if various Heads of State will decide what is real news and what is fake.

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

How is the global Internet Governance Forum funded?
.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat – based in Geneva, is sustained financially through the extra-budgetary Trust Fund Account managed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The nature of the IGF Trust Fund is such that it is voluntary and multi-donor driven, with varying contributions from Governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community, the private sector and the civil society. The IGF Trust Fund covers the administrative and operational costs of the IGF Secretariat including personnel, fellowships, and meeting costs (venues, interpretation, logistical costs, etc.); and funds the travel costs of MAG Members from developing countries. More details about the list of donors and funds received are available online. The Trust Fund also provides support to various intersessional activities, inter alia Best Practice Forums, major policy initiatives such as Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s), etc.

Each year, the organizational and conference cost of the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum is provided for by the Government of the host country, administered through a Host Country Agreement signed between the Government and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

  • Government of Finland
  • Government of Germany
  • European Commission
  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  • The Internet Society (ISOC)
  • Number Resource Organization (NRO)
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • Government of Switzerland
  • Government of the United States
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • Government of Japan
  • Nominet UK
  • Tides Foundation
  • Verizon
  • IGFSA
  • Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  • AT&T
  • China Energy Fund Committee
  • Verisign
  • Afilias Global Registry Services
  • Facebook
  • Government of Portugal – Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Siemens Aktiengesellschaft – Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks
  • Google
  • Government of Norway
  • Government of Sweden
  • Amazon
  • UNINETT Norid
  • The Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • European Registry for Internet domains
  • CISCO
  • auDA Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)
  • Coordination Center for TLD
  • Danish Internet Forum
  • Politecnico di Torino
  • Community DNS
  • Government of the Republic of Korea
  • European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association
  • MCADE, LLC
  • NIC-MEXICO
  • Nic.at The Austrian Registry
  • Summit Strategies International
  • NIKKEI DigitalCORE
  • Ribose Inc.

In addition to the funding of various governments, the following names should be familiar to almost everyone: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon, and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues. We’re having this conversation under unusual circumstances at a pivotal moment in history.

In a world already fundamentally transformed by digital technologies, the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing have propelled the adoption of information and communications technologies and transformed the bedrock of humanity’s means of survival and prosperity: communication. To cooperate, we must communicate, and to communicate nowadays, we must use digital means. This is an important time for Internet governance.

COVID-19 has raised the stakes for global digital cooperation. Over the last few months, my office, in partnership with the international telecommunications unit, organized a series of webinars on digital cooperation in times of COVID-19 and beyond. These discussions considered challenges when urgent cooperation is required, such as with regard to the ongoing deficit in connectivity, with regard to human rights challenges and trust and security issues.

.
Health systems today don’t just have to treat the sick. They also have to deal with cyber attacks and the spread of dangerous, life-threatening misinformation.

In follow-up to the Secretary-General’s call for a global cease far, I also called for a digital cease fire. Global cooperation is necessary if we wish to overcome the pandemic without drastically compromising values like privacy and freedom of speech.

A few days ago, the Secretary-General presented his roadmap for digital cooperation which sets forth his vision for how the international community should engage on these and other key digital issues outlined in the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The roadmap describes a range of actions for all stakeholders from the United Nations system to member states, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the technical community. The United Nations, including the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, can truly serve as a platform for informed discussion and evidence-based decisions and practices.

The High-level Panel had noted, and I quote, “a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements, a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active and diverse participation by governments and the private sector, and more inclusive processes and better follow-up,” end of quote.

The IGF should be retooled to become more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. We must ensure that the IGF is a forum that governments value and want to attend while preserving the important space it represents for other stakeholder engagement.

The IGF’s coordinating and strategic role needs to be further strengthened. The roadmap includes a series of suggestions to further enhance the IGF, such as by improving fundraising, inclusion, and outcomes. I hope you will all be engaged in the follow-up of the action areas highlighted in the Secretary-General’s roadmap, and I hope you will all share your views specifically on how the IGF can be made even more responsive to the evolving challenges of digital cooperation.

Thank you for your engagement and support of the IGF and digital cooperation. We welcome and we need your ideas, your proposals, and your continued enthusiasm and support.
Thank you.

Don’t worry. It’s not like this will lead to a global body deciding what can or can’t be talked about or shared on the internet. This will absolutely never be abused.

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

The Global Internet Governance Forum goes on to propose several different ways that “digital cooperation” could be implemented on a world-wide scale. But don’t worry. It’s all just discussion, and nothing that gets suggested will ever become legally binding.

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

Save the date: The virtual Canadian IGF will be Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, 2020.
The Canadian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is Canada’s leading multi-stakeholder forum on digital and internet policy issues.
.
The inaugural event took place last year in Toronto and brought together over 200 representatives from government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle pressing public policy issues facing the internet.
.
The Canadian IGF is a national initiative of the global United-Nations-convened Internet Governance Forum, which holds annual meetings at different locations around the world. The Canadian IGF will produce a report detailing the unique, regional priorities facing Canadian stakeholders in attendance. This report will then be fed into the global IGF.

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

This isn’t just some abstract UN group far off. There exists a Canadian branch of the Internet Governance Forum, and its agenda is pretty much what one would expect.

Throughout the discussions, several common themes emerged across subject areas. These
included trends towards increased regulation; the necessity for plain language content; and,
the need for education and digital literacy. For stakeholders engaging in Internet governance
domestically and abroad, priorities going forward include the need for:
• A transnational, multistakeholder approach to internet governance.
• Awareness of/education on the issues, and how users can participate in discussions
related to internet governance.
• Solutions developed by any stakeholder group that are thoughtful, evidence-based, and
proportionate.
• Transparency from both governments and businesses in order to promote public trust
and build the capacity of users.

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

That is from page 5 on the report. They explicitly state that they view internet regulation as a global concept.

Key Issues
• Fake news and misinformation.
• Hateful online speech.
• Global and domestic threats.
• Data security

Discussion Overview
The panel’s discussion surrounded three main topics: 1) While foreign actors are a threat, domestic actors are an equal or higher risk when it comes to the dissemination of fake news and the proliferation of hateful speech online. Social media platforms also have to balance discouraging fake news, while ensuring they are not censoring a legitimate group; 2) Political actors are increasingly using social media platforms as a tool to get messages out; and 3) In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, academics have seen social media platforms reduce their access to datasets to study the fake news problem.

A recent report on Canadians’ use of social media shows that 94% of internet users here in this country have at least one social media account. The exposure to potential misinformation and disinformation campaigns is enormous.

Both technological and policy-based solutions are needed to confront the fake news problem. Facebook, for instance, has a three-pronged strategy focusing on people, technology and, increasingly, partnerships. Facebook has gone from 10,000 to 30,000 people dedicated to working on this challenge. In Q2 and Q3 of last year, Facebook removed approximately 1.5 billion fake accounts. The development of digital literacy skills is required to help users discern between real and fake news. The need for civility among users was also stressed. Canada must decide on its approach to fake news and newer technology, generally. Do we want to follow the lead of the United States or Europe?

A void has been created in the news world because traditional journalism is fading quickly. Social media platforms have become a new distribution channel for news. Panelists disagreed on whether the problem can be solved through technology or if it is more deeply rooted in human causes for which technology has no response

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

From pages 18/19 in the report: it seems that outlets like Facebook have taken it upon themselves to determine what accounts are fake, and what counts as fake news.

The authors of this report, (and of IGF more broadly), keep referring to “international stakeholders”. It seems to imply that other parties should have some say over free speech on the internet, instead of Canadians themselves.

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

It’s interesting that the report talks about the decline of traditional media (which is true), but omits the tax-payer funded bailout that the Canadian Government gave. In effect, old-stock media in Canada is now subsidized even more so. Even without the IGF, the media is already pretty corrupt.

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

This was covered a few months ago, but UNESCO has been embarking on a serious campaign against what it calls “misinformation”. UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources for information on coronavirus.

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

Tremendous progress has been made internationally in accepting that international law and the UN Charter apply in cyberspace. He urged the private sector to be involved in countering the number of malevolent tools being deployed in cyberspace, especially in developing more secure software.

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age
.
The consensus from the session on Fake News was that part of the complexity to tackle disinformation was the challenge to define it. From election interference to stoking up hate or increase religious hatred, there are also other multilayered levels such as spam, and misleading types of content like opinion pieces masking as objective journalism.

Irene Poetrant, Senior Researcher for Citizen Lab of University of Toronto agreed, saying definitions matter and in order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is important for government, private sector, civil society and institutions to work together, and that fake news is not just a problem of the west but a global problem.

“Misinformation is the antithesis of Google’s mission”, said Jake Lucchi, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact. Partnering with journalists, governments, and third parties, they try to find product solutions to identify misinformation and find ways to surface authoritative content. “Young people need to have critical thinking and skills to be able to navigate the internet and check our sources.” Improved algorithms and having policies in place to prohibit hate speech are also key – providers have to ensure misinformation are not allowed on their platforms.

That page is from the November 2018 meeting is Paris. While it sounds benevolent on the surface, who exactly will be the arbitrator of what is “fake news”? Remember, UNESCO (as an example), repeatedly says that only official sources can be trusted. This comes in spite of a wealth of information that CONTRADICTS those narratives. This raises the question of can valid media be shut down if factual reporting is tagged as “misinformation”?

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

Think that the “Digital Charter” was an idea suddenly concocted? It wasn’t. The UN Digital Cooperation Panel was launched in the Summer of 2018. When the New Zealand shooting happened in March 2019, the stage had already been set.

In a similar vein, the mass shooting in Nova Scotia appears to be a pretext for the Federal Government imposing a mass gun grab.

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

11 June 2020 – New York
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres presented today a set of recommended actions for the international community to help ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. The Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, global effort to address a range of issues related to the Internet, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies.

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation comes at a critical inflection point for digital issues, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating digitization and magnifying both opportunities and challenges of digital technology.

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

But don’t worry. These resolutions and agreements won’t ever become legally binding, or anything like that. These are just ideas being thrown around.

Posted on

CV #63: Were Products Descriptions Changed, Or Were CV Supplies Ordered Years Ago?

https://wits.worldbank.org/
The World Integrated Trade Solution is a partnership between several groups, including: International Trade Center; UN Conference on Trade and Development; UN Statistical Commission; World Trade Organization; and World Bank. The (apparent) ordering of Covid-19 medical supplies in 2017-2019 raised a lot of attention.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For example: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed. The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Changes In Product/Numbering System?

This article will specifically address 4 product codes that are in the WITS system as being coronavirus supplies. However, looking at the description, they appear to have general medical, scientific use.

300215 – CV test kits
COVID-19 Test kits (300215) imports by country in 2019
Additional Product information: Diagnostic reagents based on immunological reactions
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link To WITS Description

382100 – CV viral swab and kits
Swab and Viral transport medium set (382100) exports by country in 2018
Additional Product information: A vial containing a culture media for the maintenance of a viral sample and a cotton tipped swab to collect the sample put up together
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link to WITS Description

382200 – CV test kits
COVID-19 Test kits (382200) imports by country in 2019
Additional Product information: Diagnostic reagents based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid test.
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link To WITS Description

902780 – CV diagnostic kits
COVID-19 Diagnostic Test instruments and apparatus (902780) imports by country in 2018
Additional Product information: Instruments used in clinical laboratories for In Vitro Diagnosis. Colorimetric end tidal CO2 detector, sizes compatible with child and adult endotracheal tube. Single use.
Category: COVID-19 Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
Link to WITS Description

3. Canadian Imports Database

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cid-dic.nsf/eng/home

The Canadian Imports website lists the above items as generic medical imports. It’s possible that these were just normal imports, and that the codes have been re-labelled to be CV equipment.

4. Harmonized System Codes (Foreign Trade)

https://www.foreign-trade.com/reference/hscode.htm

The Harmonized System of coding results in much the same naming system as the Canadian Imports site.

5. About World Integrated Trade Solution

INTRODUCTION
The World Bank — in collaboration with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and in consultation with organizations such as International Trade Center, United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) — developed the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). This software allows users to access and retrieve information on trade and tariffs. Below is list of international organizations that compile this data:

The UNSD Commodity Trade (UN Comtrade) (UN Comtrade) database contains merchandise trade exports and imports by detailed commodity and partner country data. Values are recorded in U,S. dollars, along with a variety of quantity measures. The database includes information on more than 170 countries, and features statistics that have been reported to the United Nations since 1962. These statistics and data continue to be recorded according to internationally recognized trade and tariff classifications.

The UNCTAD Trade Analysis Information System (TRAINS) contains information on tariffs and non-tariff measures for more than 160 countries. The data on tariffs and non-tariff measures are recorded at the most detailed Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), at the National Tariff Line Level. Tariff information contains not only applied MFN tariff rates, but also to the extent possible, various preferential regimes including the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and other Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) rates including bilateral trade agreement tariff rates.

The WTO’s Integrated Data Base (IDB) contains imports by commodity and partner countries and Most Favored Nation (MFN) applied and, where available, data on preferential tariffs at the most detailed commodity level of the national tariffs. The Consolidated Tariff Schedule Data Base (CTS) contains WTO-bound tariffs, Initial Negotiating Rights and other indicators. The CTS reflects the concessions made by countries during goods negotiations (e.g., the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations). The IDB and CTS are practical working tools and there are no implications as to the legal status of the information contained therein.

The World Bank and the Center for International Business, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College Global Preferential Trade Agreements Database provide information on preferential trade agreements (PTAs) around the world, including agreements that have not yet been notified to the World Trade Organization. This resource helps trade policy makers, research analysts, the academia, trade professionals and other individuals better understand and navigate the world of PTAs.

WITS lists as its partners:

  • International Trade Center
  • UN Conference on Trade and Development
  • UN Statistical Commission
  • World Trade Organization
  • World Bank

What this amounts to is a system to track international trade of products and goods, and the tariffs that have been imposed on them.

6. UN Describes WITS As “Software”

Use UN Comtrade via World Integrated Trade
Solution (WITS)
The World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) is software developed by the World Bank, in close collaboration with United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), International Trade Center (ITC), United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) and World Trade Organization (WTO).
.
WITS was a free software which allows you to access the major trade and tariff data compilations, inclulding the UN Comtrade database maintained by UNSD. You can obtain access to UN Comtrade data in WITS once you have obtained a subscription to UN Comtrade.
.
WITS is now fully web based. No more installation required.
For subscriptions to UN Comtrade, please contact subscriptions@un.org or visit:
https://unp.un.org/Comtrade.aspx

Text Of Descriptor

WITS is just software that the World Bank and its partners came up with in order to facilitate and aid international trade, and tariffs.

7. UN Conference On Trade & Development

https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/Trade-Analysis/Non-Tariff-Measures/NTMs-WITS.aspx

The UNCTAD also describes WITS as a form of software designed to help organize and facilitate trade across national borders.

8. Shows Up In 2017-2019

Again, this could be the result of renumbering, or changing the names on existing codes. On the surface though, it looks like coronavirus supplies have been imported for years now.

Likely, it is just due to system changes, and that people (the author included), have been wondering over nothing.

While there are many reasons to go after government officials over this virus hoax, this isn’t one of them.