Wars Archives - Page 5 of 23

September 27, 2022September 28, 2022

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

While most lockdown related lawsuits and human rights complaints aim at removing these infringements on human rights, others demand that they be reinstated. Here is another such case.

A Calgary man has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the federal government’s decision to lift mask requirements on airplanes.

The decision, announced Monday, is part of a bundle of changes that come into effect Oct. 1. At that point, travellers will also no longer be required to wear masks on trains, provide proof of vaccination or submit public health information with the ArriveCan app.

“I was frankly dismayed when I heard the news,” said Dr. David Keegan, a family doctor who has a cardiopulmonary condition.

Keegan said that while airplanes do have filtration systems, they don’t completely eliminate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, especially if people are unmasked.

To be clear, nothing prevents, or will prevent this man from wearing a mask when he travels. Instead, his “human rights” complaint is to demand that everyone else be forced to.

He’s also insisting that others play along with his delusions about there being a virus in the first place. Pretty scary that these people are in positions of influence.

Interestingly, the CBC article covering the story, and related reprints, don’t mention that Keegan is a University of Calgary Professor. Did they not want this connection to be made public?

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta only lists a single David Keegan as having a license in that Province. So, it seems unlikely to be a duplicate, or a coincidence. Of course, we don’t want the wrong person to get mocked.

On Keegan’s Twitter profile, it turns out that his pinned tweet is the announcement that he’s filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This guy isn’t trying to hide the fact that he’s attempting to take people’s freedoms away. Amazingly, the idiots replying are cheering him on as some kind of a hero.

Keegan’s LinkedIn profile describes him as “Family Doc and Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Performance (Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary); Academic Family Physician”. He’s much more than just an employee, but an Associate Dean as well. (Archive here).

The University of Calgary has been very active in lobbying the various levels of Government for more money, and it shows. The school is routinely getting many millions in taxpayer handouts.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION	AMOUNT	MORE COMING?
Canada Foundation for Innovation	$7,898,000.00	YES
Canada Research Chairs	$8,126,000.00	YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)	$50,044,000.00	YES
Foreign	$34,573,000.00	YES
Health Canada (HC)	$707,000.00	YES
Municipal	$3,823,000.00	YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)	$30,820,000.00	YES
Other Federal	$43,087,000.00	YES
Other Provinces	$10,102,000.00	YES
Provincial	$692,013,000.00	YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)	$12,616,000.00	YES

Have to wonder about that $34.5 million in “foreign” funding.

Interestingly, although the University of Calgary itself isn’t listed as having received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, or CEWS, the Pentecostal Ministries have. It’s no surprise that UCalgary is structured as a registered charity. In fact, a search flags 3 charities connected to this school. This is just another way to get money from the public.

Revenue Until March 2021
Receipted donations $43,667,964.00 (2.93%)
Non-receipted donations $154,181,263.00 (10.34%)
Gifts from other registered charities $47,805,468.00 (3.21%)
Government funding $794,689,349.00 (53.30%)
All other revenue $450,709,554.00 (30.23%)
Total revenue: $1,491,053,598.00

Expenses Until March 2021
Charitable programs $1,252,850,843.00 (89.28%)
Management and administration $128,575,275.00 (9.16%)
Fundraising $21,825,347.00 (1.56%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,403,251,465.00

Revenue Until March 2020
Receipted donations $70,957,295.00 (4.48%)
Non-receipted donations $184,837,402.00 (11.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $36,304,564.00 (2.29%)
Government funding $806,786,736.00 (50.98%)
All other revenue $483,768,203.00 (30.57%)
Total revenue: $1,582,654,200.00

Expenses Until March 2020
Charitable programs $1,321,469,784.00 (88.08%)
Management and administration $153,149,342.00 (10.21%)
Fundraising $25,419,521.00 (1.69%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $347,506.00 (0.02%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,500,386,153.00

This “charity” has been taking in approximately $1.5 billion annually as of late. Of course, the public has to subsidize the donations made.

SCHOOL	DATE	AMOUNT
University of Calgary	April 2011	$100,000
University of Calgary	March 2012	$100,000
University of Calgary	October 2017	$320,729

The school has also received some donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years. In fairness though, others have taken much more. See this from 2017.

While the CBC reports this as a “Calgary doctor”, let’s be clear: this is an Associate Dean at the University of Calgary. While he may have his own interests in doing this, can we really separate personal and professional lives?

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-keegan-human-rights-complaint-mask-mandate-airplane-1.6598062
(2) https://search.cpsa.ca/PhysicianProfile?e=9fd5d2c3-3bcc-43ad-9b7c-e45ba9e7c429&i=0
(3) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan
(4) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan/status/1574523390253477888
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-keegan-61707473/
(6) David Keegan _ LinkedIn Profile
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5009&regId=926282&blnk=1
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+of+calgary&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108102864RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(10) https://gatesfoundation.org
(11) https://ucalgary.ca/news/gates-foundation-interested-one-health-research-approach-ucalgary

September 21, 2022

Hearing On Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”

Canadians have filed several court challenges related to travel restrictions going on since 2020. It appears that 4 cases were consolidated, given their related and overlapping issues. The primary issues revolved around Section 6 of the Charter, Mobility Rights.

T-1991-21: Karl Harrison/Shaun Rickard
T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
T-168-22: Brian Peckford et al.
T-247-22: Maxime Bernier

Although the circumstances of each challenge differ, all of them are concerned with Canadians being able to travel and move freely within the country.

Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
Marginal note: Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

However, Section 1 of the Charter has shown just how worthless this document really is. Far from the requirement that limitations be demonstrably justified, Judges have seen fit to uphold these violations based on the flimsiest of justifications.

Instead, it’s been replaced with blindly trusting the experts.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That being said, the Feds probably aren’t interested in having to justify these restrictions in court, so they came up with another option. Their lawyers filed a motion to strike the case for “mootness”. Plainly put, the argument is that since the restrictions have been lifted (as in, the orders expired), there’s nothing for a Judge to look at.

This is disingenuous for a few reasons. First, even if there are no active restrictions, it doesn’t erase any harm or violation of Constitutional rights. This comes across as a cop-out to avoid taking any responsibilities.

Second, various officials have made it clear they “won’t hesitate to bring back” various restrictions and martial law measures. So, while these may be “suspended” for the time being, it doesn’t mean that they won’t come back in some form.

We’ll have to see what comes of this, but it would be unfortunate to allow this kind of stunt to circumvent people getting their day in court.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(3) T-1991-21 Doc 51 MOTION RECORD in response to Motion Doc. No. 44
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

July 19, 2022July 19, 2022

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

You probably haven’t heard any concrete or specific updates from Notice Of Application concerning the lawsuit that was filed in April 2021. The most likely reason is that nothing has happened in the 15 months since the initial Notice of Application.

Why continue to follow up? A few reasons. First, knowing the truth about these publicly funded cases is important. After all, people have donated. Second, so that false hope isn’t attached to cases that will never go anywhere. Third, it’s not just the obvious people whose activities need to be monitored.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched.

Recently, a follow-up article showed that Vaccine Choice Canada’s lawsuits (both of them) had been dormant since 2020.

As for some detailed critiques of various challenges, see here and here for some of the more obvious flaws and defects. How does this happen, unless intentionally?

Another Notice Of Application was filed in April 2021, concerning masks on students in Ontario schools. The 2 documents are virtually identical, suggesting a cut-and-paste creation for the second. And likewise, there’s no activity going on, nor anything in the foreseeable future.

Again, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. No movement at all since Statement of Claim filed.
Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

There had been claims floating around starting in 2021 about affidavits of evidence that totaled in the thousands of pages. Problem is: if they actually exist, they haven’t been filed anywhere. One possible explanation is that this was deliberate deception to soothe over the concerns of donors with the lack of record activity.

Apparently a new suit has been filed in Federal Court. (Archive is here). While not written well, it’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other Claims. It’s only been a month, so too soon to determine where that goes. However, if recent history is any indication, it will likely sit for months or years with no activity.

To readers who have donated to these “lawsuits”: you may want to seriously consider demanding a refund. It seems very unlikely that this is what you thought was really going on.

July 17, 2022July 17, 2022

Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

An argument that doesn’t seem to be brought up (at least in Canadian circles) is lockdown measures are illegal for another reason: they violate the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Now, there is a provision that makes this (largely) null and void, but it’s still interesting to think about.

Of course, this doesn’t seem to apply when the state is the one taking the hostages. There’s a weasel clause that makes state-sanctioned hostage taking okay. One would think that international bodies facilitating hostage taking would make it apply.

Anyhow, let’s take a brief look through the document:

Article 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
(a) attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
(b) participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

One would think that detaining citizens at airports for refusing the nasal rape test (for a non-existent virus) counts. Does threatening people with financially crippling fines for not complying with arbitrary or inconsistent rules qualify?

What about forcibly sending people to quarantine camps? Or imposing de-facto house arrest for a period of time, as demanded by public health?

How about being threatened with the loss of one’s livelihood for not wanting to take an unknown experimental concoction?

Article 3
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure.
(2) If any object which the offender has obtained as a result of the taking of hostages comes into the custody of a State Party, that State Party shall return it as soon as possible to the hostage or the third party referred to in article 1, as the case may be, or to the appropriate authorities thereof.

A country has an obligation under this agreement to secure the release of foreigners held hostage in another one. However, that doesn’t apply to domestic hostages.

Article 4
States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in article 1, particularly by:
.
(a) taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their territories, including measures to prohibit in their territories illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of acts of taking of hostages;
(b) exchanging information and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.

Based on this alone, the Public Health Agency of Canada should be shut down. It encourages, instigates, organizes and engages in acts of hostage taking via “public health orders”.

Article 7
The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States concerned and the international intergovernmental organizations concerned.

Article 8
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.
(2) Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connexion with any of the offences set forth in article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings, including enjoyment of all the rights and guarantees provided by the law of the State in the territory of which he is present.

Considering that these measures are instigated by supra-national bodies, would we not be able to extradite members of W.H.O. here in order to prosecute for hostage taking?

Article 13
This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the hostage and the alleged offender are nationals of that State and the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State.

The U.N. states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, but this only seems to apply across borders. Abusing rights domestically doesn’t qualify.

In other words, a foreigner in Canada — even illegally — would theoretically have some recourse here. However, a Canadian citizen would not.

Article 14
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as justifying the violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of a State in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.

Logically, a country wouldn’t be able to carry out hostage taking under the guise of political independence. But when it’s the U.N. or W.H.O. behind it, then perhaps the rules don’t matter. That being said, look at Article 13, at how that loophole makes the document worthless.

Of course, the Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations, PHAC is just a branch of WHO, and originally Health Canada was meant for population control measures.

In the end, we have foreign bodies writing laws which effectively hold us hostage. There’s a treaty against taking hostages, but it doesn’t apply if done domestically. And this loophole bypasses punishment by having Federal, Provincial, and some Municipal authorities do their bidding.

(1) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?lcid=1033&id=104001&t=637936622752983920
(3) https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1979%20International%20Convention%20against%20the%20Taking%20of%20Hostages.pdf

July 16, 2022November 17, 2023

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

July 3, 2022May 13, 2023

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.

According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	63,291	32.5	1
Italy	31,625	16.2	2
United States	17,514	9.0	3
Germany	9,263	4.8	4
Portugal	7,930	4.0	5
France	7,872	4.0	6
Greece	7,174	3.7	7
China	4,094	2.1	8
West Indies	3,935	2.0	9
Netherlands	3,794	1.9	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	156,492	80.4	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	38,251	19.6	—
GRAND TOTAL	194,743	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	62,420	28.0	1
Italy	30,055	13.4	2
United States	19,038	8.6	3
Germany	11,779	5.3	4
Greece	10,650	4.6	5
France	10,122	4.5	6
Portugal	9,500	4.2	7
West Indies	8,403	3.8	8
China	6,409	2.9	9
Australia	4,967	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	173,343	77.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	49,533	22.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	222,876	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	37,889	20.6	1
United States	20,422	11.1	2
Italy	19,774	10.8	3
Germany	8,966	4.8	4
China	8,382	4.6	5
France	8,184	4.4	6
Austria	8,125	4.4	7
Greece	7,739	4.2	8
Portugal	7,738	4.2	9
West Indies	7,563	4.1	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	104,782	57.0	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	79,192	43.0	—
GRAND TOTAL	183,974	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	31,977	19.8	1
United States	22,785	14.1	2
West Indies	13,093	8.1	3
Italy	10,383	6.4	4
China	8,272	5.1	5
Portugal	7,182	4.4	6
Greece	6,937	4.3	7
Germany	5,880	3.6	8
France	5,549	3.4	9
India	5,395	3.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	117,453	72.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	44,078	27.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	161,531	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	26,497	18.7	1
United States	24,424	16.5	2
West Indies	12,456	8.4	3
Italy	8,533	5.8	4
Portugal	7,902	5.4	5
Greece	6,327	4.3	6
Yugoslavia	5,672	3.8	7
India	5,670	3.8	8
China	5,377	3.6	9
France	4,410	2.9	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	101,596	68.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	46,118	31.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	147,714	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United States	24,366	20.0	1
United Kingdom	15,451	12.8	2
Portugal	9,157	7.5	3
Italy	5,790	4.8	4
India	5,313	4.4	5
China	5,009	4.1	6
Greece	4,769	3.9	7
Philippines	4,180	3.4	8
Yugoslavia	2,997	2.4	9
France	2,966	2.4	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	79,998	66.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	41,902	34.4	—
GRAND TOTAL	121,900	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United States	22,618	18.5	1
United Kingdom	18,197	14.9	2
Portugal	8,737	7.2	3
Hong Kong	6,297	5.2	4
India	5,049	4.1	5
Uganda	5,021	4.1	6
Italy	4,608	3.8	7
Greece	4,016	3.3	8
Philippines	3,946	3.2	9
France	2,742	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	81,231	66.6	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	40,775	33.4	—
GRAND TOTAL	122,006	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	26,973	14.6	1
United States	25,242	13.7	2
Hong Kong	14,662	8.0	3
Portugal	13,483	7.3	4
Jamaica	9,363	5.1	5
India	9,203	5.0	6
Philippines	6,757	3.7	7
Greece	5,833	3.2	8
Italy	5,468	3.0	9
Trinidad-Tobago	5,138	2.8	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	122,122	66.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	62,078	33.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	184,200	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	38,456	17.6	1
United States	26,541	12.1	2
Portugal	16,333	7.5	3
India	12,868	5.9	4
Hong Kong	12,704	5.8	5
Jamaica	11,286	5.2	6
Philippines	9,564	4.4	7
Greece	5,632	2.6	8
Italy	5,226	2.4	9
Haiti	4,857	2.2	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	143,467	65.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	74,998	34.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	218,465	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	34,978	18.6	1
United States	20,155	10.7	2
Hong Kong	11,132	5.9	3
India	10,144	5.4	4
Portugal	8,390	4.5	5
Jamaica	8,211	4.4	6
Philippines	7,364	3.9	7
Italy	5,078	2.7	8
Guyana	4,394	2.3	9
South Korea	4,314	2.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	114,163	60.8	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	73,718	39.2	—
GRAND TOTAL	187,881	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	21,548	14.4	1
United States	17,315	11.6	2
Hong Kong	10,725	7.2	3
Jamaica	7,282	4.9	4
Lebanon	7,161	4.8	5
India	6,733	4.5	6
Philippines	5,939	4.0	7
Portugal	5,344	3.6	8
Italy	4,530	3.0	9
Guyana	3,430	2.3	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	90,007	60.2	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	59,422	39.8	—
GRAND TOTAL	149,429	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	17,977	15.6	1
United States	12,888	11.2	3
Hong Kong	6,371	5.5	3
Philippines	6,232	5.4	4
India	5,555	4.8	5
Lebanon	3,847	3.3	6
Portugal	3,579	3.1	7
Italy	3,411	3.0	8
France	2,757	2.4	9
Guyana	2,472	2.4	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	65,089	56.7	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	49,825	43.3	—
GRAND TOTAL	114,914	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
United Kingdom	11,801	13.7	1
United States	9,945	11.5	2
India	5,110	5.9	3
Hong Kong	4,740	5.5	4
Philippines	4,370	5.1	5
Portugal	3,086	3.6	6
Italy	2,976	.43	7
France	1,754	2.9	8
South Africa	1,653	1.9	9
Lebanon	1,454	1.7	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	46,880	54.3	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	39,424	45.7	—
GRAND TOTAL	86,313	100	—

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE	RANK
Vietnam	19,859	17.7	1
United Kingdom	12,853	11.5	2
United States	9,617	8.6	3
Hong Kong	5,966	5.3	4
India	4,517	4.0	5
Laos	3,903	3.5	6
Philippines	3,873	3.5	7
Jamaica	3,213	2.9	8
Guyana	2,473	2.2	9
China	2,058	2.1	10
TOTAL — TOP 10	68,332	61.0	—
TOTAL — OTHERS	43,764	39.0	—
GRAND TOTAL	112,096	100	—

Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.

YEAR	# U.S.	% U.S.	# Eur.	% Eur.	# Aust	% Austr	# Other	% Other
1973	25,242	13.7	71,883	39.0	2,096	1.1	84,979	46.1
1974	26,541	12.1	88,694	40.6	2,022	0.1	102,208	46.3
1975	20,155	10.7	72,898	38.8	1,654	0.1	87,174	46.4
1976	17,315	11.5	49,908	33.3	1,387	0.1	80,819	54.1
1977	12,888	11.2	40,747	35.5	1,063	0.1	60,216	52.4
1978	9,945	11.5	30,075	34.8	1,233	1.4	45,060	52.2
1979	9,617	8.6	32,858	29.3	808	0.1	68,813	61.4

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.

Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

Category: Wars

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

Like this:

Hearing On Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”

Like this:

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

Like this:

Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

Like this:

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

Like this:

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1966 To 1979 Data

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979

3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

Share this:

Like this: