Proceedings were paused at the public inquiry looking into the federal government's use of the Emergencies Act on Thursday afternoon after a medical incident.
A lawyer representing the Public Order Emergency Commission collapsed while he was questioning Ontario's deputy solicitor general, the second witness of the day.
This is what passes for an important issue to the Trudeau government in Canada which has been one of the leading nations in persecuting its unvaccinated citizens:
I did like how all of the trained (and masked/virtue signalling) Liberal monkeys around her applauded her announcement after she finished speaking, even going so far as to shake her potentially SARS-CoV-2 hand! On the upside, it's nice to know that Canada and Canadians have nothing to worry about; under the Trudeau regime, all of the nation's problems, with the notable exception of its treatment of vaginas and vulvas, have been solved.
Since Canada's Liberal Party bases its philosophy on total inclusion (except for unvaccinated Canadians who are deemed unworthy of using the nation's airlines and rail infrastructure as passengers because they are either misogynistic or racist according to Justin Trudeau) I very quickly noted that MP Pam Damoff made three key omissions. While she celebrates vaginas and vulvas, she seems to have completely forgotten about clitori, uteri and ovaries who are now feeling inferior because they don't have their own special day.
As an aside, here is further information on Ms. Damoff and her role in leading Canada:
...and, as an MP, here is what she is costing Canadian taxpayers:
Member of the House of Commons - $189,500
Parliamentary Secretary - $18,400
...as well as this:
Certainly, Canadian taxpayers are getting their money's worth from Ms. Damoff and her vagina/vulva.
In closing and just in case those Canadians who have an X and Y chromosome can assure themselves of one thing; from the tone of Ms. Damoff's speech, a special celebration day for vas deferens and scrotums is pretty much a non-starter. Sorry about that.
For some reason, this word comes to mind and I can't really explain why:
No vulgar harassment of police — no “All cops are bastards” signs.
No rocks for every Starbucks window and those of small businesses. No blizzard of break-ins, no store owners standing guard on their shops. No arson or looting.
Jan. 6 insurrection Canadian edition? Ha! It is to laugh. I’ve seen more threatening picnics thrown by a few nuns.
Yet if you listened to much of the established press predictions, Ottawa over the weekend was supposed to be like Rome waiting for the Visigoths. Ooooh — the end of cottage government as we’ve come to know it. A full-scale assault on our Zoom Parliament.
Plain, straight reportage uninflected by the personal dispositions or ideological pre-sets of the reporters or the corporations they work for was hard to come by. Our stern reporters, always ready to squeak agreement to power, worked to set a context. I’ve seen more threatening picnics thrown by a few nuns
They perspired with eagerness that an almost completely incident-free protest might turn into a gathering of “yahoos.” That an angry diesel mob fired up by Boston creams and cold coffee would storm the House of Cottage and end democracy in Canada, such as we know it. They leaped at trivial individual mischiefs and tried to brand the entire protest as negative and even hateful.
The bottom line — they did not cover this protest in the gentle, generally approving manner they have covered so many others, from the Summit of the Americas demonstrations in Quebec City in 2001 to Black Lives Matter in 2020. I believe that Justin Trudeau joined that one.
The contributions over the course of this protest from the prime minister and the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh were viciously demeaning.
Trudeau was extremely derogatory, to the point of calculated insult, concerning all who were not in line with his view of things. And he acted as a woke Pope in assuming the right to make the judgment on which views of Canadians were “unacceptable.” And to declare the protesters a band of racists and misogynists.
Does he not know the meaning of the words he recklessly threw out to brand Canadian citizens? “Racist” is the dynamite word of our time. Throwing the word “racists” at a collection of Canadians is mean, nasty, and false.
It must be remarked that a quadruple black-face prime minister is not the best centurion to stand guard against racism, or to accuse others, who incidentally are not so addicted to facial cosmetics as he plainly is.
You know what the saddest part in all of this is? A walk down to the protest, an easy talk with random truckers, with Trudeau saying his piece, and the drivers theirs — that would have been a Canadian moment. The civilized, respectful thing to do.
It was never to be however. Hard politics is better than harmony. Sunny Days has morphed into Mr. Thunder-cloud.
Then there was the other party leader, Jagmeet Singh, the scaffold and support of Trudeau’s stay as prime minister. Of Mr. Singh let us say it must be very hard to have the instincts of a demagogue without the talent to carry it off. But to give him credit, he does try.
First, just to set the stage, is it really that hard to believe that after two years of a pandemic regime some Canadians are not “on-board” with current policies? Hard to believe that people living and working (or trying these days to get work) far from Ottawa and power, feel left out and frustrated?
Sunny Days has morphed into Mr. Thunder-cloud
More to the point, is it also that hard for a Canadian political leader to believe that some Canadians act on principle, and out of concern for their personal autonomy?
Was not the NDP once, of all parties, populist in a positive sense, more tuned to the “working man and woman” than any other? Those days are obviously long gone and the dimmest memory. Instead what we got from the current and most-urban NDP leader was a smearing of the protest, citing a comment from one individual who claimed “the superiority of the white bloodline” as an index of the thinking of the other leaders, and by insinuation, the whole convoy. A crumb is not the whole cake. Let me put it to the reader: Is this tweet a fair description of the convoy:
Mr. Singh: “Conservative MPs have endorsed a convoy led by those that claim the superiority of the white bloodline and equate Islam to a disease .” (Italics mine.)
The convoy of Canadian truckers, of multiple ethnicities, may be many things. But it is not composed of men and women who subscribe to, use, or think in such crapulous terms. In my judgment Singh’s comments were the lowest of the whole weekend — and he had some stiff competition in that department.
Singh is either desperate to out-Trudeau Trudeau in demonizing the truckers, or there is a serious wobble in the runners on his cushioned rocking chair.
Singh's comments were the lowest of the whole weekend
Final point: Is it really that hard for Trudeau and Singh not to acknowledge that the full majority of people who went all the way to Ottawa are just decent people? Not racists. Not women haters? Not orcs. That these protesters may be as at least as fair-minded and decent as the politicians who govern them.
A talk with a dozen or more of these folk may not have changed minds, on either side, but would have had a touch of Canadian respect and politeness, and taken the charge of sheer politics out of this whole episode.
Far too much to ask I suppose when politics is a cynical game, the press are an essential part of the same game, and some guys in a truck, on the edge of making a living, travel across the country to say a few things to their government. After all … who are they?
PS. As I was writing this, the Conservatives, with their superb sense of political timing, were behind closed doors busily disembowelling themselves. More on that in the next column.
I live in downtown Ottawa, right in the middle of the trucker convoy protest. They are literally camped out below my bedroom window. My new neighbours moved in on Friday and they seem determined to stay. I have read a lot about what my new neighbours are supposedly like, mostly from reporters and columnists who write from distant vantage points somewhere in the media heartland of Canada. Apparently the people who inhabit the patch of asphalt next to my bedroom are white supremacists, racists, hatemongers, pseudo-Trumpian grifters, and even QAnon-style nutters. I have a perfect view down Kent Street – the absolute ground zero of the convoy. In the morning, I see some protesters emerge from their trucks to stretch their legs, but mostly throughout the day they remain in their cabs honking their horns. At night I see small groups huddled in quiet conversations in their new found companionship. There is no honking at night. What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are. So last night, I decided to do just that – I introduced myself to my new neighbours.
The Convoy on Kent Street. February 2, 2022.
At 10pm I started my walk along – and in – Kent Street. I felt nervous. Would these people shout at me? My clothes, my demeanour, even the way I walk screamed that I’m an outsider. All the trucks were aglow in the late evening mist, idling to maintain warmth, but all with ominously dark interiors. Standing in the middle of the convoy, I felt completely alone as though these giant monsters weren’t piloted by people but were instead autonomous transformer robots from some science fiction universe that had gone into recharging mode for the night. As I moved along I started to notice smatterings of people grouped together between the cabs sharing cigarettes or enjoying light laughs. I kept quiet and moved on. Nearby, I spotted a heavy duty pickup truck, and seeing the silhouette of a person in the driver’s seat, I waved. A young man, probably in his mid 20s, rolled down the window, said hello and I introduced myself. His girlfriend was reclined against the passenger side door with a pillow to proper her up as she watched a movie on her phone. I could easily tell it’s been an uncomfortable few nights. I asked how they felt and I told them I lived across the street. Immediate surprise washed over the young man’s face. He said, “You must hate us. But no one honks past 6pm!” That’s true. As someone who lives right on top of the convoy, there is no noise at night. I said, “No, I don’t hate anyone, but I wanted to find out about you.” The two were from Sudbury Ontario, having arrived on Friday with the bulk of the truckers. I ask what they hoped to achieve, and what they wanted. The young woman in the passenger seat moved forward, excited to share. They said that they didn’t want a country that forced people to get medical treatments such as vaccines. There was no hint of conspiracy theories in their conversation with me, not a hint of racist overtones or hateful demagoguery. I didn’t ask them if they had taken the vaccine, but they were adamant that they were not anti-vaxers.
The next man I ran into was standing in front of the big trucks at the head of the intersection. Past middle age and slightly rotund, he had a face that suggests a lifetime of working outdoors. I introduced myself and he told me we was from Cochrane, Ontario. He also proudly pointed out that he was the block captain who helped maintain order. I thought, oh no, he might be the one person keeping a lid on things; is it all that precarious? I delicately asked how hard his job was to keep the peace but I quickly learned that’s not really what he did. He organized the garbage collection among the cabs, put together snow removal crews to shovel the sidewalks and clear the snow that accumulates on the road. He even has a salting crew for the sidewalks. He proudly bellowed in an irrepressible laugh “We’re taking care of the roads and sidewalks better than the city.” I waved goodbye and continued to the next block.
My next encounter was with a man dressed in dark blue shop-floor coveralls. A wiry man of upper middle age, he seemed taciturn and stood a bit separated from the small crowd that formed behind his cab for a late night smoke. He hailed from the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia. He owned his own rig, but he only drove truck occasionally, his main job being a self-employed heavy duty mechanic. He closed his shop to drive to Ottawa, because he said, “I don’t want my new granddaughter to live in a country that would strip the livelihood from someone for not getting vaccinated.” He introduced me to the group beside us. A younger crowd, I can remember their bearded faces, from Athabasca, Alberta, and Swift Current Saskatchewan. The weather had warmed, and it began to rain slightly, but they too were excited to tell me why they came to Ottawa. They felt that they needed to stand up to a government that doesn’t understand what their lives are like. To be honest, I don’t know what their lives are like either – a group of young men who work outside all day with tools that they don’t even own. Vaccine mandates are a bridge too far for them. But again, not a hint of anti-vax conspiracy theories or deranged ideology.
I made my way back through the trucks, my next stop leading me to a man of East Indian descent in conversation with a young man from Sylvan Lake, Alberta. They told me how they were following the news of O’Toole’s departure from the Conservative leadership and that they didn’t like how in government so much power has pooled into so few hands.
The rain began to get harder; I moved quickly through the intersection to the next block. This time I waved at a driver in one of the big rigs. Through the rain it was hard to see him, but he introduced himself, an older man, he had driven up from New Brunswick to lend his support. Just behind him some young men from Gaspésie, Quebec introduced themselves to me in their best English. At that time people started to notice me – this man from Ottawa who lives across the street – just having honest conversations with the convoy. Many felt a deep sense of abuse by a powerful government and that no one thinks they matter.
Behind the crowd from Gaspésie sat a stretch van, the kind you often see associated with industrial cleaners. I could see the shadow of a man leaning out from the back as he placed a small charcoal BBQ on the sidewalk next to his vehicle. He introduced himself and told me he was from one of the reservations on Manitoulin Island. Here I was in conversation with an Indigenous man who was fiercely proud to be part of the convoy. He showed me his medicine wheel and he pointed to its colours, red, black, white, and yellow. He said there is a message of healing in there for all the human races, that we can come together because we are all human. He said, “If you ever find yourself on Manitoulin Island, come to my reserve, I would love to show you my community.” I realized that I was witnessing something profound; I don’t know how to fully express it.
As the night wore on and the rain turned to snow, those conversations repeated themselves. The man from Newfoundland with his bullmastiff, a young couple from British Columbia, the group from Winnipeg that together form what they call “Manitoba Corner ” all of them with similar stories. At Manitoba Corner a boisterous heavily tattooed man spoke to me from the cab of his dually pickup truck – a man who had a look that would have fit right in on the set of some motorcycle movie – pointed out that there are no symbols of hate in the convoy. He said, “Yes there was some clown with a Nazi flag on the weekend, and we don’t know where he’s from, but I’ll tell you what, if we see anyone with a Nazi flag or a Confederate flag, we’ll kick his fucking teeth in. No one’s a Nazi here.” Manitoba Corner all gave a shout out to that.
As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war. The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians. They didn’t make high-falutin arguments from Plato’s Republic, Locke’s treatises, or Bagehot’s interpretation of Westminster parliamentary systems. Instead, they see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; and they said enough. Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob. They are our moral conscience reminding us – with every blow of their horns – what we should have never forgotten: We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.
Back in autumn 2006, I attended a conference at the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa at which a Canadian general waxed lyrical about the just completed Operation Medusa in the Panjwai District of Afghanistan. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were the best the country had every produced; the Taliban had been utterly crushed; it was now just a matter of some final mopping up. Victory was ours!
It was a glorious display of triumphalism, echoed in just about every other talk at the conference. It was also completely unjustified. The Taliban were far from defeated, and the Canadian army had to go backwards and forwards in Panjwai for several more years (“mowing the grass” as they called it) before packing up and going home.
Now, the tables are turned, with news emerging from Afghanistan that Panjwai has fallen fully under Taliban control. It’s estimated that Canada spent $18 billion in Afghanistan. 159 Canadian soldiers lost their lives – many more were injured. After the country paid such a price, you might imagine that our press would be interested in the news that the Taleban have captured Panjwai. But not a bit of it. On the CBC website, there’s not a word. In Canada’s premier newspaper, The Globe and Mail, not a word. In my local rag, The Ottawa Citizen, not a word. It’s as if it all didn’t happen.
To my mind, this is deeply problematic. If we are to learn any lessons from the fiasco of the Afghan operation, we first have to admit that there’s a problem. Instead, we seem intent on forgetting.
The military campaign in Afghanistan was a mistake from the very start. It’s tempting to believe that we could have got a different result if we’d committed more resources or tried different tactics. But political limitations meant that more resources were not available. Afghanistan simply didn’t matter enough for the government to be able to persuade the public to commit significantly more to the conflict. As for tactics, different commanders tried a whole succession of different methods; none worked. Failure wasn’t a product of military incompetence. The war was fundamentally unwinnable.
Against this, some might argue that winning was never the point. Canada, like many other NATO members, wasn’t there to defeat the Taliban but to be good allies to the United States. But this isn’t a very effective argument. The only point of showing oneself to be a good ally is so that you get something back in return. But Canada – like, I suspect, other US allies – appears to have got diddly squat. For instance, helping the Americans in Afghanistan didn’t stop Trump from tearing up the NAFTA treaty or stop Biden kicking Canada in the teeth by cancelling the Keystone and Line 5 pipelines (both of great importance to the Canadian economy). Besides, if the point of fighting is to be an ally, you achieve your strategic goal just by turning up. Consequently, what you do thereafter doesn’t matter. Military operations thus get entirely detached from strategy. The result is inevitably a mess. In other words, it’s a poor strategic objective. It’s not one we should have set ourselves.
There is a simple lesson to draw from all this: we shouldn’t have sent our army to Afghanistan. It didn’t help Afghanistan, and it didn’t help us. Let’s not repeat the same mistake somewhere else in the future.
A recently published study in this month’s American Journal of Therapeutics, took an in-depth look at 18 randomized controlled studies on the use of Ivermectin to control COVID-19. The study concludes that the use of Ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19” and “found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin was first developed as a veterinary drug in the 1970s, however since 1988 it has been prescribed for humans to combat various parasitic infections. Was later added to the WHO’s list of essential medications and in 2015 the inventors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
With the outbreak of COVID-19, many doctors and scientists were looking for new ways to deal with the virus. At the same time, an interesting series of events occurred one nursing home in Toronto, in February 2020 (just before COVID-19 emerged in Canada the Valley View Nursing Home in Toronto, Canada had a parasitic outbreak. 170 patients at the home were given Ivermectin. The residents of the 4th floor, where the outbreak occurred, were given the highest dose; the rest of the residents were given a prophylactic dose. The staff were not given Ivermectin. Then they had a Covid-19 outbreak. The staff were infected with COVID-19 much more than the patients. Only 6 patients contracted COVID, and they all had mild cases. The patients on the 4th floor, who received the highest dose of ivermectin, had no cases of COVID. These patients were very elderly with comorbidities, and they had much contact with the staff yet only 6% were infected.
Since then, over 60 clinical trials (31 randomized controlled) conducted by 549 scientists in 18,931 patients were conducted to see what if any link Ivermectin has with preventing and treating COVID-19. The conclusions of these studies reveal dramatic positive outcomes for the use of Ivermectin. When used prophylactically patients saw an 85% reduction in hospitalization and death, early treatment was effective 76%, and even when used as a later stage treatment was effective 46% of the time.
While these studies suggested that Ivermectin was indeed a safe, cheap, and effective treatment for COVID-19, many public health policy makers refused to permit its use to treat and prevent COVID-19. The FDA in it’s statement said that the “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19” later explaining that “The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19”. Many are insisting it’s time for the FDA to review the data and formally approve its use.
One such advocate for the use of Ivermectin is Dr. Pierre Kory, a founder of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Kory, along with the other professionals at the FLCCC developed the specific protocol to prevent and treat COVID-19 using Ivermectin. While the treatment was shunned by the medical establishment and the social media banned promoting or debating the treatment, physicians, like Kory, persisted and advocated for its use. In December 2020 Dr. Kory and others gave an impassioned plea, backed by scientific research at a committee hearing in the U.S. Senate. Stating that Ivermectin “basically obliterates transmission of this virus,” the doctor continued saying “When I say miracle I do not use that term lightly[.] … [T]hat is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months.”
Unfortunately, many are still uninformed of this treatment, and the medical establishment is still blocking its use. Several hospitals around the country are even refusing to administer the treatment to seriously ill patients. A number of patients had to go as far as to get a court order to force the hospital to permit them to use this life saving medication. Thankfully all of those patients received their Ivermectin and made dramatic turnarounds and subsequently recovered for COVID-19.
The hope of a safe and effective medication to prevent and treat COVID-19 appears to have been found in Ivermectin; unfortunately it continues to be deemed unacceptable by the medical establishment and undiscussable by social media.
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
SASKATCHEWAN: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon. Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.
There is a recording of Dr. Christian’s meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.
In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent of Covid vaccines for children.
Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.
On June 17, Dr. Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan. “I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.” Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”
“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans… before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of m-RNA vaccines,” he wrote.
Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about Covid vaccines for children.
Among his points, he stated that:
- The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
- The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the US. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations – this has not happened.”
- That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health care workers, he said, “Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of Covid is less than 0.003% – this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”
- Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
- M-RNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System in the US. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”
- He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on June 21, 2021, alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”
Dr. Christian’s concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The US Centre for Disease Control had an “emergency meeting” today to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.
The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.
The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”
Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said, physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”
Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.
Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid. “We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.
The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.
Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.
“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific”, states Mr. Cameron.
“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.
Given the ever-changing narrative on COVID-19 vaccines, it is almost impossible for a layperson to understand exactly what is safe and what is part of the ongoing Phase 3 trials. A recent graphic found on the website of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Waterloo adds to that confusion, particularly given that mixing and matching of vaccines was NOT part of the original vaccine program.
Here is the graphic which is supposed to allow vaccine consumers to determine whether they are fully vaccinated:
Basically, the graphic is telling laypeople that they should not be getting the AstraZeneca vaccine as their second dose unless they received it as their first dose and that either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are suitable as a second dose if they received the AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose.
Given that these vaccines are still being rolled out and that the final phase three trials for the stand-alone products (i.e. without mixing and matching) will not end until the following dates:
...and that the medium- and long-term side effects and efficacy of each of the vaccines on a stand-alone basis have yet to be fully understood and shared with governments, public health officials and consumers, it is concerning that governments are basically allowing Big Pharma to continue their unprecedented vaccine experiment on humanity by both extending the period of time between doses far beyond what the manufacturer recommended and allowing the mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines all in the name of vaccinating as much of the world as possible as quickly as possible.
Imagine a world where you can be jailed for attempting to protect your child from medical assault. A future where you can no longer object to your child being subjected to medicalized gay conversion ‘therapy.’ A country where the government can legally enforce a belief system and criminalize anyone who goes against that system of belief. No, I’m not talking about Iran… I’m talking about Canada.
On Friday, April 16, a father in Canada, Rob Hoogland, was sentenced to serve 6 months in jail for the crime of attempting to protect his child from medical assault, for speaking up, for refusing to abide by a legally enforced belief system — gender ideology. For parents in Canada, this is their new reality. And other countries, like the US, aren’t far behind.
The ordeal began several years ago, when Hoogland discovered that his 12-year-old daughter’s name had been changed in the 7th grade yearbook. From there, the truth unraveled — His child had been shown SOGI 123 ‘education’ videos (gender ideology indoctrination propaganda) at her school. She then decided she was a boy, the school ‘affirmed’ the child as a transexual and ‘socially transitioned’ her without informing her parents. The school kept this all a secret from the parents in accordance with the B.C. Ministry of Education’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policy, which dictates that parents have no right to know what their child’s “preferred sex, gender, or name” is at school.
The school sent the child to see a psychologist, Wallace Wong, who treats “transgender” children as young as 2, and who, at an event hosted by Vancouver Public Library, admitted that he advises kids to fake being suicidal. Wong sent the family to the endocrinology unit at the B.C. Children’s Hospital.
“So what you need is, you know what? Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, [then] they will give you what you need…” — Wallace Wong
On their first visit to the endocrinology unit, the doctor laid out a plan to medically ‘change’ Hoogland’s, then 13-year-old, child’s sex (to male), including injections of testosterone. Hoogland wouldn’t sign off. He noted his child said she was a lesbian, prior to deciding she was a boy, and thought she might be going through a phase. He also noted his child had obsessive tendencies and mental issues — His daughter had been infatuated with 2 male teachers, to the extent the school had to intervene, and in the 8th grade, while being ‘affirmed’ as a boy, his daughter had attempted suicide.
When his daughter was 14, the hospital informed Hoogland that they would be medicalizing his child in accordance with the B.C. Infants Act, and that according to the B.C. Infants Act, they didn’t need parental consent to do so.
Young people do not reach full cognitive brain development till around the age of 25, yet the B.C. Infants Act says a minor can consent to medical treatments. While this makes sense in the context of life-saving surgery (where, for example, a Jehovah’s Witness can otherwise prevent a hospital from saving their child’s life), when it comes to something as serious as chemical castration or the surgical removal of a minor’s sex organs, a young person can not possibly give “informed consent.” The prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that determines our ability to understand repercussions, consequences, and develops our sense of identity, among other things, simply isn’t fully developed until the mid-twenties.
Furthermore, most youth who are diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” would otherwise grow up to be LGB, if they are allowed to grow up — Statistically speaking, 75% would grow up to be LGB, and 85% would grow up to be LGB or straight. What’s being legally enforced is a massive human rights violation of gay and lesbian youth, and a human rights violation of youth in general. Not to mention a violation of every single adult forced, legally, to lie and go along with it.
In 2019, Judge Francesca Marzari convicted Hoogland of “family violence” for using female pronouns when speaking about his daughter, and signed an order authorizing the police to arrest him if he was caught using language in a way that acknowledged his child as biologically female.
In March, Hoogland was arrested and held behind bars without bail. Hoogland’s lawyer, Carey Linde, commented, “He’s been sitting out in a government-supplied bed cot, in a small cement cubicle with iron bars, for speaking his mind, and he will stay there until the trial starts at 2 p.m. on the 12th of April.”
On Friday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen, said Hoogland had “blatantly, willfully and repeatedly” broken the rules, speaking out, and that a “strong denunciatory sentence” was necessary.
Hoogland has been ordered to serve six-months in jail. Additionally, the judge — noting the father’s crowdfunding website, which raised $56,000 to help him in this case — was ordered to donate $30,000 to Ronald McDonald House of B.C. and the Yukon, after he is released from jail.
Youtube: Rob Hoogland
On April 16, Chris Elston, a father and activist who sat in on the hearings, tweeted that Hoogland “pleaded guilty to violating the gag order by speaking out, naming the doctors involved, and publishing documents like this consent form that his daughter signed when she was only 13 years old,” commenting, “many young women get prophylactic hysterectomies after about 5 years on testosterone because the risk of cancer is so high. Prolonged testosterone use also causes abdominal pain, and vaginal and uterine atrophy, requiring hysterectomies. Can a 13-year-old girl consent to her own sterilization? The doctor at B.C. Children’s Hospital thought so after meeting with the child for just one hour.”
On April 14, Elton tweeted “Linde gets back to the Tavistock decision. The issue at the heart of this is whether a child can give informed consent. Seeing as we know very little about the long-term effects of these drugs, obviously they cannot.” However, it seems as though the judge wasn’t all too interested in whether or not a young person can give “informed consent.”
While it may be clear, to anyone logical, that this father was speaking out in an attempt to protect his child from medical malpractice, the judge said he didn’t accept that the father’s “intention was otherwise than to attempt to undermine the authority of the courts and overall administration of justice.”
After the judge implied that he planned to inflict a longer jail term than the Crown recommended, the father took another turn on the stand and explained that during his time held in jail, he thought about his actions and realized he might’ve been used as a “pawn” and “played,” and influenced by new friends.
On Friday, the judge said he went with less jail time than he initially considered, due to the father’s last minute expression of remorse, his agreement to make efforts to remove information on his case from the internet, and the “eloquent” plea made on his behalf by Jenn Smith (a trans-identified advocate who publicly challenges gender ideology).
In recent years, a number of clinicians have come forward to say they left their jobs because their gender clinic was knowingly performing gay conversion therapy. A modest number of independent doctors have stepped up and spoken up as well.
In October, the Keira Bell (Tavistock) case demonstrated that young people have been subjected to medical malpractice. We have been seeing, and will be seeing a lot more, young people come out of this system feeling deeply violated. And rightly so… They’re being sexually and medically assaulted by the medical field.
Parents who send their kids to school, and let their kids access the internet, where gender ideologists run rampant, now run the risk of being forced to watch (or worse still, be jailed) as their children are ripped away, drugged, sterilized, and assaulted by the medical field — a field that’s forever been obsessed with pathologizing and medicalizing those who don’t conform.
Chrystia Freeland: Rhodes Scholar Trustee of the WEF, Deputy PM of Canada and the Failure of the ‘Super Elite’
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has become a bit of a living parody of everything wrong with the detached technocratic neo-liberal order which has driven the world through 50 years of post-industrial decay.
As the February 2, 2021 National Post coverage of Freeland’s leading role as trustee of the World Economic Forum makes clear: Her role as Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (which is nominally a position devoted to protecting the interests of Canadians) creates more than a small conflict of interest. The WEF Great Reset agenda is, after all, nothing more than a dystopic program aimed at deconstructing industrial civilization under the cover of COVID-19 and this is not something which benefits any nation.
It is also important to keep in mind that the technocratic globalists whom Freeland represents have worked hard to undo the aberration of Donald Trump which profoundly altered the sacred script which had been obeyed for so many decades without much resistance. Even though Biden was imposed onto the American people this year, it is vital to recall that the script is profoundly flawed, and Trump’s 2016 victory was but one display of that.
Having been set up as a counterpart to the steely Hillary Clinton who was supposed to win the 2016 election, Freeland and her ilk have demonstrated their outdated thinking in everything they have set out to achieve since the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Certainly before that, everything seemed to be going smoothly enough for End of History disciples promoting a script that was supposed to culminate in a long-sought for “New World Order”.
The Script up until Now
Things were going especially well since the collapse of the Soviet system in the early 1990s. The collapse ushered in a unipolar world order with the European Union and NAFTA, followed soon thereafter by the World Trade Organization and the 1999 destruction of Glass-Steagall (1). The trans-Atlantic at last was converted into a cage of “post-sovereign nations” that no longer had actual control of their own powers of credit generation. Under NATO, even national militaries were subject to technocratic control. This cage was perfect for the governing elite “scientifically managing” from above while the little people bickered over their diminishing employment and standards of living from below.
Even though the former Soviet bloc nations were in tatters by 1992, their sovereign powers could only be undone by applying the liberalization process which took 30 years in the west in a short space of only a decade. This was done under the direction of such monetarist “reformers” such as Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar under Yeltsin. Similar privatization and liberalization reforms were applied viciously to Ukraine and other Warsaw pact countries during the same period. Those pirates that became the “nouveau riche” of the west were joined by such contemporary modern oligarchs such as Oleg Deripaska, Boris Berezovksy, Mikhail Fridman, Roman Abramovich in Russia, alongside Petro Poroshenko, Rinat Akhmetov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Viktor Pinchuk of Ukraine (to name a few). Not to forget their spiritual roots, many of these oligarchs soon purchased houses in the swank upmarket sections of London which has come to be known as “Moscow on Thames.” (2)
By the end of the 1990s a new phase of this de-nationalization was unleashed with the unveiling of the Blair doctrine explicitly calling for a “post-Westphalia” world order which unleashed a wave of hellish regime change wars in the Arab World beginning with 9-11, and with a long term intention to target Libya, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon while expanding NATO’s hegemony against the potential re-emergence of Russia and China.
The Economic Meltdown Was Always the Intention
Let’s be clear: the whole point of the post-1971 world was directed with the intention of destroying the moral-political and economic foundations for western society. The belief in scientific progress and industrial growth was the cause of all true progress from the 15th century Golden Renaissance to the assassinations of the 1960s. The intended consequences of this post-1971 (zero growth) policy were:
1) The destruction of the productive forces of labor vis a vis outsourcing to “cheap labour markets” driven by shareholder profit.
2) The consolidation of wealth into an ever smaller array of private multi-billionaire owners under a logic of Darwinian survival of the fittest.
3) The creation of a vast speculative bubble supported by ever greater rates of unpayable debt and totally detached from the physically productive forces of reality.
Just like 1929, after years of speculation known as the roaring twenties, the “plug could be pulled” on the bubble in order to impose a bit of shock therapy onto a sleeping population who would beg for fascism as a solution if only it would put bread on their tables. Though this plan failed 80 years ago due to the American rejection of fascism under President Roosevelt, the belief that the formula could succeed in the 21st century was adhered to most closely as long as America was brought firmly under control of the City of London and their Wall Street lackies (3).
Although the fascist “solution” to their manufactured crisis was put down during WWII, this new attempt was premised upon the policy that a new system of Global Government managed by draconian regulation would be imposed under a “Green New Deal” framework whereby the instruments of banking regulation, state directed capital and centralized government (not evils unto themselves), would be directed only to green, low energy flux density forms of energy which inherently lower the population of the earth. This is very different from the protectionism, bank regulation, state credit and central authority exerted by America during the 1930s New Deal (or Eurasian New Silk Road policy today). The difference is that one system empowers sovereign nations, and increases the productive powers of labor and energy flux density of humanity while increasing quality of life, the other “Green” agenda has the opposite effect whereby monetary incentives are tied to decreasing the “carbon footprint” of the earth. The image of a drug addict getting paid heroine as an incentive to bleed himself to death is useful here.
With the slow collapse of first world economies after the assassination of nationalist leaders in the 1960s, the plan for depopulation and global government seemed to be unfolding without serious opposition.
The Role of Chrystia Freeland
Freeland’s bizarre role in this whole affair was to do what every good Rhodes Scholar is conditioned to do upon their completion of their indoctrination at Oxford: facilitate the tough transition of the “pre-collapse” world economy into a new operating system that was meant to be the “green post-collapse” world economy. It wasn’t going to be easy to tell a new “pirate class” of billionaires that they would have to accept losing much of their wealth (less population equals less money), and operate under a strict new global operating system of regulation necessary to contract the society. The Rhodes Scholarship program begun in 1902 to advance a re-organized British Empire and had worked alongside the Fabian Society for over a century producing more than 7000 scholars who have permeated across all fields of society (media, education, government, military and corporate).
In his 1877 will, Cecil Rhodes said this group should be “a society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.”
After leaving Oxford in 1993, Chrystia Freeland learned the ropes of “perception management” by working for the London Economist, Washington Post, Financial times and Globe and Mail and Reuters. After serving a stint as editor-at-large of Reuters, the time had come for her to play the role of Valery Jarrett to the “Barack Obama” of Canada then being prepped for Prime Ministership of Justin Trudeau.
She was perfect.
As an asset of the global propaganda system, Freeland had made high level contacts with those Ukrainian, Russian, and Western oligarchs mentioned above including Viktor Pinchuk and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Larry Summers, George Soros and Al Gore, were just a few players in the west whom she considered her “close friends” and whom she was happy to bring into Canada during the period of re-organization of the Liberal Party (2011-2014) as it prepared to take power under the banner of the Canada 2020 think tank. What made Freeland even more special was that she was bred from a zealous family of Ukrainian nationalists under the patriarchy of her Nazi grandfather Michael Chomiak. This network was brought to Canada after WWII by Anglo-American intelligence and cultivated as a force with ties to pro-Nazi Ukrainian counterparts ever since.
Freeland’s admission into politics was managed by another Rhodes Scholar named Bob Rae who served as interim controller of the Liberal Party during several of the Harper years and was a major player in Canada 2020. Rae, who had been the NDP Premier of Ontario from 1990-1995 was happy to abdicate his seat to Freeland ensuring her entry into Trudeau’s inner circle and thus becoming his official handler (4).
Freeland Promotes the New Global Elite
Freeland has made it clear that she understands well that there is a fundamental difference in cultural identities of the “new rich” relative to the older oligarchic families which she serves. In the 2011 Rise of the New Global Elite, she describes it as follows:
“To grasp the difference between today’s plutocrats and the hereditary elite, who “grow rich in their sleep” one need merely glance at the events that now fill high-end social calendars.”
Freeland then breaks down the categories of “new plutocrats” into two subcategories: the good, technocratic friendly plutocrats who are ideologically compatible with the New World Order of depopulation, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, et al and the “bad” plutocrats who tend not to conform to the British Empire’s program of global governance and depopulation under the green agenda. In Freeland’s world “good oligarchs” are those who adhere to this agenda, while “bad oligarchs” are those who do not. Trump is a terrible Plutocrat, and – Viktor Yanukovych was a good plutocrat until he decided to not sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of the collapsing European Union and chose to throw Ukraine’s destiny into the Eurasian Economic Union in October 2013.
In the same paper, Freeland wrote:
“if the plutocrats’ opposition to increases in their taxes and tighter regulation of their economic activities is understandable, it is also a mistake. The real threat facing the super-elite, at home and abroad, isn’t modestly higher taxes, but rather the possibility that inchoate public rage could cohere into a more concrete populist agenda– that, for instance, middle-class Americans could conclude that the world economy isn’t working for them and decide that protectionism… is preferable to incremental measures.” Quoting billionaire Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco she wrote: “one of the big surprises of 2010 is that the protectionist dog didn’t bark.”
Freeland ended her article with this message:
“The lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth… Let us hope the plutocrats aren’t already too isolated to recognize this”.
But what does Freeland really think of the technocratic management under a plutocratic governance of society? In Plutocrats vs. Populists (Nov. 2013), Freeland lets her pro-plutocratic worldview out of the bag when she gushes:
“At its best, this form of plutocratic political power offers the tantalizing possibility of policy practiced at the highest professional level with none of the messiness and deal making and venality of traditional politics… a technocratic, data-based, objective search for solutions to our problems”
Since a technocratic managerial class committed to a common ideology must be solidified for this system to work, Freeland goes on to make the case to recruit young people to the imperial civil service:
“Smart, publicly minded technocrats go to work for plutocrats whose values they share. The technocrats get to focus full time on the policy issues they love, without the tedium of building, rallying– and serving– a permanent mass membership. They can be pretty well paid to boot.”
The End of a Delusion?
Now that Russia and China’s new operating system shaped by the Belt and Road Initiative has created a force of opposition to this British-run Deep State design, nothing which those would-be gods of Olympus have attempted to achieve has succeeded. Syria has continued to resist regime change while Arab nations are increasingly joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Venezuela has failed to fall the way so many regimes have done before 2014. Trudeau’s usefulness has withered away and now the decision appears to be seriously humored whether Freeland will take the reins of Canada after Trudeau is eliminated in order to impose a dystopic Great Reset of world government, depopulation and the dream of Cecil Rhodes. While the universe may be organized by a principle of reason, no one can say the same applies to the mind of an oligarchic.
(1) The separation of speculative from commercial banking was the bedrock of financial regulation since its implementation in 1933. Its destruction as Clinton’s last act in office resulted in the creation of the largest bubble in history amounting to a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives time bomb now ready to explode.
(2) When Putin began exiling many of these unrepentant oligarchs, they quickly made their way to London where many became disposable playthings of the British Empire.
(3) The self-professed “Fabian Society of Canada” was set up in the height of the Depression by five Rhodes Scholars in order to create a Canadian fascist regime in 1932. This organization known as the League of Social Reconstruction, set up a political party called the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) which later changed its name to the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961. While good people have found themselves members of the NDP and Liberals over the years, it is useful to keep in mind that this rotten core tied to the highest echelons of the British oligarchy are real.
(4) It is a useful point to make here that as Premier of Ontario Bob Rae brought in Maurice Strong as President of Ontario Hydro from 1992-1994 during which time Canada’s nuclear sector was nearly shut down and a prototype for a “green New Deal” was applied. Strong had famously described a “fiction book he wished to write someday saying: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow, BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation.
Dr Richard Schabas, former Ontario Chief Medical Officer, has sent a letter to @fordnation against lockdowns
Dr Richard Schabas, former Ontario Chief Medical Officer, has sent a letter to @fordnation
Dr. Schabas, who trained Dr David Williams, adds: "Our well-intentioned but misguided efforts to control Covid are only compounding the tragedy. We need to change course”
2020 staggers on, each month becoming more bleak, tiresome and increasingly onerous.
In the early winter months we paid scant attention to the Coronavirus story developing in China. And why should we have? After SARS, almost twenty years ago, then minor scares such as Swine Flu, Ebola, Zika Virus, Flesh Eating disease, along with past potential terrors like Avian Flu and Foot and Mouth Disease, there was no reason to think this was anything but another sensationalized false alarm. Indeed, an honest investigation, not even one all that rigorous, could easily have demonstrated that this was the case.
However, the last nine months have been nothing but an absolutely dedicated, well organized and diligent global effort to re-brand the common flu as a devasting pandemic just barely under control.
We have been asked to turn to some of the most trusted people in our civil society, Doctors and Professors, the types of professionals whom we would least expect to lie to us or to deliberately mislead us. They have sworn an oath to heal, to do no harm; they are dedicated to the search for the truth, borne out of diligent research and a rigorous scrutiny of the data. If they gravely and repeatedly tell us that we are at great risk and that things can and will get much, much worse very quickly then who are we to question their wisdom and their warnings?
The suddenness and unrelenting persistence of this great Covid lie wears us all down.
We were caught off guard by this deception here in Ontario, Canada. Just before the annual, week-long March break holiday we were told by our Premier Doug Ford (just think of one of the Pigs from “Animal Farm”) to continue with our travel plans, all will be fine. Just days later the closures started and the sloganeering began: “Flatten the curve”, “We’re all in this together”, “The New Normal”. All empty, hollow utterances that allowed people to avoid really thinking about what was really happening.
In Ontario, those of us who still dare to question this narrative are becoming increasingly isolated and marginalized. It is amazing to see how quickly people have chosen their side on this matter and how unwavering their devotion to their cause can be. Whether it is a shut down for two weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, masks all the time, everything closed or even an experimental vaccine, it does not matter. “We’re all in this together”. Anyone who disagrees is either reckless, selfish, stupid or all of the above.
This other ‘reckless’ point of view is much smaller and very marginalized. Prominent Scientists and Virologists are ignored in the media for voicing a dissenting opinion, even the most moderate voices of dissent are ridiculed. The Great Barrington Declaration, with an extremely reasonable and balanced plea for reason in dealing with CV-19, has been savaged in the press because some journalists were able to add some absurdly fake names to an online form that anyone could sign.
I was impressed enough by the open letter published in September from almost 2,000 Belgian Medical Doctors & Health Professionals that I sent it to my Belgian friends, very smart and well-educated people, who did not doubt the Covid narrative. The response, when I enquired of one of them, was that “it was too long, [he] did not read it”. His underlying message was clear, he was not going to consider anything beyond the boundaries established by the press. If the Economist or The Atlantic magazine supported the Covid narrative then it must be so. If you chose to consider anything outside these boundaries you were either misled or grossly misinformed.
Unfortunately for me, I was branded a conspiracy theorist a long time ago amongst family and friends because I passionately argue against the official narrative for 9/11. These obvious controlled demolitions, along with all of the other evidence of this carefully coordinated operation – the subterfuge, the impossible coincidences, the great effort to cover it up – was irrefutable proof in my mind, if you would just consider it.
The parallels of CV-19 to 9/11 are both terrifying and, I am ashamed to say it, reassuring.
The aftermath of the shocking, astonishing events of 9/11 became even more difficult to comprehend with the addition of the Anthrax attacks and the Belt-Way sniper that followed.
Covid-19 has been overshadowed in some of the same ways, with the Black Lives Matter riots and the extended, ridiculous spectacle that is the Presidential Illusion of Choice, held sacred by so many Americans. As a result, it is hard to remain focused on anything; the world seems to be coming apart at its seams, yet the deliberate rips, the shoddy stitching and the forces pulling things apart are obvious enough, if you bother to look.
Much like the [Project for a New American Century](http://Project for a New American Century), a policy document that detailed the need for an event like 9/11 and the sweeping, imperialist opportunities that would result, we now have ‘The Great Reset’. A chance to ‘Build Back Better’ an equitable and improved society for all, governed by a few.
Trying to connect these plans to CV-19 instantly makes one a conspiracy theorist, even though these strategic plans do exist. They are well-documented, easy to find and easy enough to read.
When you point out the obvious benefits that overreaching control and an obscene global theft of power and money will impart to a select few, it doesn’t matter. You are merely someone who sees a conspiracy in everything.
With 9/11 the world had changed for ever, they said, and in many ways it certainly has. For most of us – complacent, docile Europeans and North Americans – well, we just generally went back to life as it was before. Either knowingly or through sheer ignorance (usually a bit of both), we supported new wars of occupation in the middle east, the massive increases in military spending and huge new encumbrances on our personal freedoms.
The worst outcome of 9/11 was that several countries were illegally invaded and brutally occupied with millions upon millions dying and suffering as a result. For most of “us” this did not matter, as daily life was still the same. We still had our jobs, our holidays and leisure, our new gadgets, our homes and certainly our futures. After a few years, when I finally made sense of this great 9/11 lie, I still did not do much differently. I would argue with friends and family about what had really happened on that day, and I lost faith in much of the media and government I had formerly trusted. But, in the end, I still supported the system and benefited from it.
I feel ashamed of wishing for these same types of selfish outcomes with CV-19. Even though the world economies have haemorrhaged trillions of dollars to fight this re-branded flu, perhaps it will still be ok in the end? Money is just a modern faith-based system these days anyways. If we can believe in Bit-Coin, the vast labyrinth of Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps, then why can’t we just add a lot more cash to the mix if we need it? Most of us are too young to have ever experienced inflation. Isn’t that economic reality just for mismanaged countries like Zimbabwe and Argentina anyways? Perhaps the track and trace apps won’t be that intrusive and, after all, our phones violate our privacy every minute they are switched on as it is. Could this ‘new normal’ be any worse?
Perhaps the covid vaccine is just a cash grab for big Pharma, like the flu vaccine or the HPV vaccine? Products we never wanted nor needed, that required a campaign of coercion and fear mongering to produce any real demand. With the CV-19 disinformation campaign waging on a global stage, they seem to be positioned to distribute 3 billion servings of a double-dose vaccine at $39.00 USD per serf. That is close to 120 Billion dollars… Surely, that might be enough to tide over the pharmaceutical industry for a few years, until Covid-20? Perhaps they will achieve a balance: enough people willing or compliant enough to be vaccinated yearly, and a media/medical establishment willing to proclaim that the covid scourge is over for now?
I really don’t believe this will happen, yet I still selfishly hope that this covid era will end, that my kids can return to school without masks, that they will be able to take part in after-school activities and that their future still holds many exciting possibilities and paths.
I hate fearing that the world will suddenly be redefined as a global, technocratic state where diversity becomes equality, families become individuals and the truth, or even just a difference of opinion, becomes a violation of ‘community guidelines’.
It has now been nine months. The fear, uncertainty and self doubt I have about this situation and my future are constant and growing. I have grown extremely weary of sharing relevant articles and interviews that I am certain will alarm and enrage, only to find out they have fallen on deaf ears – unwatched, unread or simply dismissed.
It makes me wonder, who am I to think I am smarter than the majority, more aware and more of a critical thinker than my friends and peers? Perhaps I just suffer from a prolonged and acute confirmation bias and I am incapable of separating truth from conjecture, fear from reason and goodwill from ill intent? Is there some type of persistent pessimism or self-loathing that gives me this particular lens?
To assuage these doubts, which I encounter almost daily, I remind myself to revisit the tired cliché of cui bono. Who stands to benefit?
9/11 was an easy one, they actually published their goals beforehand in the Project for New American Century document and betrayed their nature in many instances of sheer greed, such as obscenely lucrative, barely-months-old insurance policies on the buildings they collapsed.
A casual examination shows us that CV-19 has already substantially enriched the Billionaire class, strengthened the stranglehold that the mainstream media and big tech have on creating facts and defining truth, allowed governments to spend without restriction and to restrict their citizens without restraint.
No matter how absurd the response becomes to what an honest virologist would call an inconsequential virus, most citizens are demanding a greater response. More unscrutinised spending, more closures, more doses of vaccines to be made available as soon as possible, and more public shaming (and worse) for those who do not comply with the ‘new normal’.
In the end, pharmaceutical giants will be the big winners, earning untold billions for their rushed vaccine, and will be spared any liability for all adverse consequences. Small businesses and personal autonomy will have disappeared and we will all be that much easier to track, control, monitor, punish and isolate.
Does it have to be this way? Last week I went to a local protest in Toronto. It felt really good to finally step forward and add my voice and my presence amongst those willing to call bullshit on this assault on science, reason and the fabric of our local and national communities. The protest itself was calm and measured but you could easily sense the frustration and fear of those in attendance.
To be sure, some protesters looked and behaved quite oddly and this made me wonder if I really did belong with this group. However, I feel much more at odds with “the new normal” types: the masked families in parks or the middle-aged women that now walk in the streets to avoid the dangers of human proximity on sidewalks, while glaring at the speeding cars that rush by.
I tend, therefore, to turn to a select few people and publications online instead. People like my younger sister, Eva, who has been a tireless advocate for truth in Syria, Palestine and Venezuela. I know her well enough to know she does what she does solely because she knows it is right, certainly not for money or prestige. As a thanks for her work and sacrifice, she has to live with constant attacks and the ignominy of a horrendous Wikipedia Page – nothing short of a smear, solely to discredit her in the eyes of anyone vetting her or new to her reporting.
It is people like this that I trust.
Throughout the last nine months, the conflicts of interest and the obvious biases of the media, lobbyists, most levels of government, big Tech, big “Charitable” foundations and benevolent trusts make it obvious that this scheme will only work if their propaganda is unwavering and unrelenting.
Why aren’t my friends and family as concerned as I am? Why does my wife, who has been able to see through much of the fear mongering and distortion, draw the line at protesting or voicing her opinion amongst friends? What do I do when I encounter her growing resentment towards me for behaving this way? I love her, I understand why she is afraid and what she wants to protect us from, but perhaps it is this sense of self-preservation which ‘the powers that be’ are counting on? Will this self-preservation lead to our undoing?
The temptation to try to wait this out is still strong, even though the few weeks they initially asked of us has gotten closer to a full year. The temptation to think we are too far gone to warrant launching resistance is also consistently there.
To combat this, I ignore mainstream media and I have stopped trying to reach others that I know cannot be reached.
There still remains, of course, many persistent and unresolved fears and issues.
How far can this possibly go? Will we be forced to vaccinate ourselves, our children and even our fragile elderly? How will our economy reconcile the gross expenditures of 2020? What businesses will remain once, IF, this finally grinds to an end? How likely is this crisis to be exploited as an opportunity by multi-national capitalism, in the ways leftist gate-keepers like Naomi Klein have written about in the past, yet seem unwilling to recognize in the present?
I hope for our sakes and for my own that more people grow weary of this non-existent pandemic and realize that they can demand a return to reason and individual liberties.
The most hopeful thing I have seen in months has been a compilation video of recent protests around Europe and North America.
When this all started, we were encouraged to stand on our porches and bang pots and pans at a set hour to celebrate our front-line heroes in manufactured displays of solidarity. It is so encouraging now to see people choosing, on their own, to protest together and banging pots and pans in front of their government buildings instead. Showing true solidarity against this covid nonsense.
This is the opposite of big-tech and their non-stop, ever-present propaganda. It is simple, non-violent and to-the-point. The message is clear: we are entitled to assemble together and to protect what is most dear to us. Families together, meals together, forging our livelihoods together, simply being together.
I won’t forget this message and I won’t miss another protest. The cost is too great. I am tired of seeing everything fall apart when we still have the ability to fight to live, work and simply be together as normal people.
Alex Bartlett lives and works in Toronto Canada.
I’m guessing that national newspapers have largely given up fact-checking their authors. It’s time consuming and costly, and it’s a competitive business and profit margins are slim. Who needs it? And so, our newspapers happily churn out story after story alleging Russian misinformation while themselves publishing blatant misinformation about the Russian Federation, its leaders, and its policies.
Take Canada’s own beloved National Post, excerpts from which are syndicated in local newspapers across the country, including our capital city’s Ottawa Citizen. The Post likes to publish the works of one Diane Francis, an American-born Canadian journalist whose political leanings can be surmised from the fact that she is said to be a ‘non-resident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC.’ No doubt she’s done some great work through the years, to justify her many awards. But when it comes to Russia she has some serious problems getting her facts right.
This is clear from her latest gem, which appeared today with the headline ‘Putin is playing chess with the West – and he’s winning.’ Francis begins:
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been very, very busy lately playing geopolitical chess, as America plays checkers.
Talk about cliché! Putin plays chess while we play checkers – how many times have I heard that one?! But I’m not interested in Francis’s lack of stylistic originality, so much as her tenuous grasp of reality. For this is what she has to say:
As the US election campaign dominated the headlines all summer and fall, millions more people were placed under the boot of Russia in Belarus and Nagorno-Karabakh … [In Belarus] Now Moscow controls its economy, media and police forces … [In Nagorno-Karabakh] Russian troops are nothing more than an occupying force executing a de facto takeover of territory.
Where does Francis get this stuff?? I’m damned if I know. How precisely does Russia now control the Belarusian economy?? Has Moscow bought out the Minsk Tractor Factory, the Belaruskali potash company, Belavia airlines, or anything else? If so, Diane Francis is apparently the only person in the world to know about it.
What about the other claims? Does Moscow now control the Belarusian media? A few weeks ago there was an allegation that after several hundred Belarusian TV workers walked off the job, a similar number of Russians were flown in to replace them. No solid evidence to back the allegation has ever been provided, and it seems somewhat improbable that Russian state TV has that many spare people lying around. As for Moscow controlling the Belarusian police, again that appears to be something entirely in Diane Francis’s imagination. Back in August, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that he could send police to Belarus if they were needed, but nothing ever came of it. The Belarusian police seem to be managing perfectly well on their own (as far as the authorities are concerned) and remain decidedly under the control of their own president, Alexander Lukashenko.
Which leaves us Nagorno-Karabakh. Russian peacekeepers there are ‘an occupying force executing a de facto takeover of territory’, Francis tells us, bringing ‘millions more under the boot of Russia’. I’m kind of wondering whose territory it is that she thinks Russia has taken over – Azerbaijan’s or Armenia’s?? I also wonder how she thinks that 1,960 soldiers, with no civilian administrators, can control a territory the size of Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact that they are there as a means of bringing peace to the region and preventing the inevitable bloodshed which would have resulted if the war had continued, passes Ms Francis by. So too does the fact that both the parties to the conflict – Azerbaijan and Armenia – consent to the Russians’ presence.
If that was all that this article got wrong, it would be bad enough, but sadly it isn’t. For Ms Francis tells us that,
Putin also expanded his presence in Syria, Libya and the Arctic, and will certainly do so in Afghanistan if Trump pulls American troops out.
I have to say that I’m not aware of a recent expansion of the Russian presence in Syria (the Arctic in question is in any case part of Russia – and as for Libya, it depends on whether you count the mercenaries of the Wagner Company). In reality, the Russian military footprint in Syria isn’t notably larger than it has been at any other point in the last five years. As for Russian troops storming into Afghanistan if the Americans leave, all I can say is that nothing is impossible but to say that this will ‘certainly’ happen is bizarre to say the least. One imagines that Russians have little appetite for a second Afghan war. Meanwhile, the Russian government has repeatedly made it clear that it would prefer if the Americans stayed in Afghanistan.
And then finally, Ms Francis comes out with this whopper of a falsehood. telling us that Russia’s ‘takeover’ of Nagorno-Karabakh
is similar to what the Kremlin did in Ukraine in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea and killed tens of thousands of people.
Whoa, Whoa. Stop for a moment. Russia ‘killed tens of thousands of people’ in Crimea’??? Since when? The last time I looked into this, the death toll in the Russian annexation of Crimea was one person, not tens of thousands. But what’s the difference when there’s propaganda to be spread?
Methinks that Ms Francis is probably confusing the takeover of Crimea with the war in Donbass, but even if you accept that explanation for her curious statement, it is still far from the truth. So far about 13,000 people have been killed in Donbass. That’s bad, but it’s not ‘tens of thousands’. Ukrainian military deaths amount to 4,500. Rebel military deaths are somewhere in the same region, though possibly a bit higher. Of the 13,000 dead, it’s also reckoned that maybe around 3,500 are civilians, the vast mass of whom were on the rebel side of the frontline and so the victims of Ukrainian, not rebel or Russian, shelling. In other words, most of those killed in the war have been killed by the Ukrainian army. ‘Russia’ is not free of guilt, but ‘killed tens of thousands of people’ it most certainly has not.
Nor is Russia responsible, as Ms Francis claims late in her article, for the fact that ‘This fall, Ukraine’s anticorruption efforts came to a sudden halt’. Francis claims that this was ‘due to attacks by Russian-backed media outlets, politicians and oligarchs, as well as Russian-influenced judges.’ That would be Ukraine’s Constitutional Court. Where is the evidence that its judges are in the pay of the Kremlin?? Once again, I’m damned if I know. Ms Francis certainly isn’t telling.
Discussing such falsehoods before, I’ve noted that even though it’s one article it’s still worth pointing out its errors. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people read this junk. They take its claims as truth. But they’re not; they’re false, pure and simple. Publishing this stuff, without any effort to check its facts, is highly irresponsible, fanning fears and hatreds, and contributing to a worsening of international relations. Although it almost certainly won’t, the National Post, and other outlets like it, should consider this long and hard.
‘In recent weeks, Russia has stepped up its military and propaganda campaign around the world,’ Ms Francis tells us, warning also of the dangers of ‘Russian disinformation campaigns’. It strikes me that if she’s after propaganda and disinformation, she should start by looking a little closer to home.
A few years ago, when I did ride-alongs with Toronto-area police officers, I saw how much of their job involves dealing with mental-health and addiction issues. Most of the incidents these officers responded to were rooted in troubled households, and the protagonists typically were well-known to the arriving officers: an autistic adult son whose outbursts overwhelmed aging parents, a wife fearful of an alcoholic husband, an agitated elderly man who’d become convinced his neighbours were spying on him through his devices. Most of these incidents required therapists as much as (or more than) police officers. But since the threat of violence hovered over all of them, at least in theory, it was the police who got the call. As I wrote at the time, the officers mostly played the role of social workers with a badge.
The stereotype of police as violent, poorly trained hotheads is sometimes borne out on YouTube, which now functions as a highlight reel for every bad apple wearing a uniform. But the reality—at least in Canada, where I live—is that new officers are typically post-secondary graduates who spend a lot of their time in training sessions. In 2016, I sat in on one such session at a police headquarters facility west of Toronto, where officers attend seminars conducted by experts from within the community, and then go through elaborate small-group role-playing scenarios led by a trained corps of actors who specialize in mimicking various crisis states. As I reported in a magazine article, the facility features a mock-up house with different rooms, so officers can perform their exercises in realistic domestic environments. When each role-playing scenario was completed, the officers were critiqued and interviewed in front of the entire group. Then the actor herself would give her impressions about how the officers’ behaviour made her feel.
I thought about all this following the real-life case of Regis Korchinski-Paquet, the 29-year-old black woman who fell to her death from a Toronto apartment balcony in May while seeking to evade police officers. During one role-playing session I observed four years ago, an actor seeking to evade officers under similar circumstances ran into a bathroom and locked the door. For five minutes, the officers awkwardly tried to coax her out, meeting with eventual success. In the analysis segment that followed, the supervising officer explained that it once was common practice for officers in such situations to simply bash open the door. But this kind of technique fell out of fashion years ago, since it led to unnecessary trauma and risk (for the officers as much as the bathroom occupant).
Some of the other acted exercises I observed included a paranoid schizophrenic crouching under a kitchen table, babbling fearfully as officers tried to soothe him, and a homeless woman who threatened to hurt herself with a knife if officers approached. While holding them at bay from her perch on a living-room sofa, the actress recited a backstory: She had nothing to live for because child services had taken away her kid, her only reason for hope. When she finally put away the knife, the officers walked forward to escort her away—at which point the supervisor ended the exercise and admonished them: “Yes, she put away that knife,” he said. “But how do you know that’s the only weapon she’s got? When you focus on the object, you forget about the person.”
There was also a memorable exercise involving a male actor who was threatening to jump from a window—which presents another grim point of analogy to the Korchinski-Paquet case. It is a mark of this man’s acting skill that, years after I watched his morbid star turn, I still remember the details of his narrative: He was a musician, suffering from depression, who was stuck pursuing a dead-end part-time position with a local orchestra.
Critically, he wasn’t the only actor who was part of this particular exercise. An older woman played the role of his mother, who was screaming non-stop as the officers arrived. Two pairs of officers did the exercise in succession, and their approaches were very different. The first pair—two men who’d recently joined the force—both approached the man and took turns imploring him to step down from the window. But they could barely make themselves heard over the screaming of the actor playing the mother role. Then came the second pair of officers, middle-aged women who’d apparently worked together on the beat. One of the women spoke to the man, while the other officer gently guided the mother off into another room. This was correct practice, the instructor said: You can’t make any progress if you’re just going to become bystanders to an ongoing drama. In many cases, you need to separate the family members before you can help them.
It’s the same principle I saw (and wrote about) when I observed two veteran officers show up at the (very real) home of a young couple who’d been fighting. The man, plainly troubled in all sorts of ways, had punched a hole in the wall, and the woman was frightened. One of the first things that happened upon our arrival was that the female officer—Constable Jaime Peach, who still serves on the Peel Police—took the man downstairs and interviewed him in the lobby. The other officer, Winston Fullinfaw (who was promoted to staff sergeant around the time I rode with him), interviewed the woman and learned about her complicated family situation. Had there been more adults in the household, it’s possible that more officers would have been dispatched: When it comes to complicated domestic disputes, sometimes there is no substitute for manpower. A beleaguered lone officer sometimes may become more prone to violence, since he is more likely to lose control of a situation and feel threatened.
This is something we should think about amid claims that society would be more peaceful if we simply got rid of the police, or starved it of funding. We should also think about how such police forces would respond to funding cuts. Training programs would be one of the first things to face the chopping block. Would that make anyone safer?
On May 27th, the last day of Korchinski-Paquet’s life, a half-dozen Toronto Police Service officers and an EMS worker responded to a call from her family members, who’d told a 911 operator that there was a fight in their 24th-storey apartment. Because Ontario’s independent Special Investigations Unit (SIU) now has released its report on Korchinski-Paquet’s death, based on camera footage and numerous interviews, we know what happened next. As the Toronto Sun accurately reported back in early June, Korchinski-Paquet asked to take a bathroom break before accompanying the officers downtown for mental-health treatment. She then barricaded a door, went onto her balcony, and slipped while trying to step onto another balcony, falling 24 floors to her death. Initial reports from family—which suggested that officers had murdered the woman by deliberately pushing her off the balcony—were completely false.
To state the obvious, the death of Korchinski-Paquet is a tragedy. And it would have compounded the tragedy to learn that her death was a racist act of homicide. One might therefore imagine that it would provide Torontonians with at least some meager solace to learn that their police force had acquitted itself without fault, and in a way that reflected the progressive, non-violent methods that are taught in training programs. But in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd and the riots that followed, it has become a common claim among progressive media and politicians that Canada is every bit as racist as the United States. And in the absence of actual recent Canadian scenes of horror on par with the killing of Floyd, the case of Korchinski-Paquet has been cited as a substitute.
The Toronto Star, which never misses a chance to hustle racism claims to its readers, has run features with titles such as “Regis Korchinski-Paquet’s death and anti-Black violence in policing,” informing us “how systemic racism and anti-Black violence continues to play a huge role in Canada.” In a Star op-ed published in early June, opinion writer Noa Mendelsohn Aviv explicitly rejected the proposition that “in order to comment on Regis’s death, we must wait for the result of the Special Investigation Unit’s investigation because we do not yet have the facts and need to ascertain the truth.” (Even when this week’s report came out, the Star could not bear to abandon its anti-police posture, and so now is impugning the credibility of the SIU.) A Maclean’s writer described Korchinski-Paquet’s death as evidence that “Black lives” are “expendable.” The SIU investigation shows nothing of the kind, even if I doubt we will see any retractions.
Regis Korchinski-Paquet died because of police intervention.
She needed help and her life was taken instead.
The SIU’s decision brings no justice to the family and it won’t prevent this from happening again.https://t.co/qvJ7uuJWUK
— Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) August 27, 2020
Perhaps the most appalling response—because it comes from someone who purports to be seeking the job of Canadian prime minister—was from Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada’s progressive New Democratic Party (NDP). On August 26th, after the SIU released its report, Singh blithely claimed that Regis Korchinski-Paquet “died because of police intervention. She needed help and her life was taken instead. The SIU’s decision brings no justice to the family and it won’t prevent this from happening again.” Singh offered no theory as to why the SIU report was wrong, but simply delivered a flat-out blood libel against the officers who’d tried to help Korchinski-Paquet on May 27th (and who are likely traumatized by what happened, as any normal person would be). To repeat: This isn’t some college activist or aggrieved family member. It is the leader of a national Canadian political party who holds the balance of power in Canada’s minority Parliament.
Singh is in some ways a special case, because his NDP, having strayed so far from the unionized blue-collar base on which it was founded, now has been reduced to little more than a social-media outpost catering to college hashtaggers. For weeks, in 2017, he spouted conspiracist nonsense about the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history. More recently, he casually denounced the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a gang of bigots, and then was ejected from Parliament when he accused a fellow Parliamentarian of being racist because he didn’t go along with Singh’s slur. But though comprising an extreme example, Singh is hardly alone. Indeed, the presumption that all police are, by their nature, contaminated by racist malignancy, has become a casually recited starting point in debates about crime and policing.
In regard to the actual goal of reforming police methods—which is the thing that Singh and everyone else pretends to care about—it’s worth taking stock of the damage wrought by this irresponsible approach. About three Torontonians die every year during encounters with police, this in a city of three million people. That’s less than one-third the average annual tally for Minneapolis, a city that is one-seventh the size of Toronto. One might think that a 20-plus-fold difference in per-capita police-involved deaths might be seen as statistically significant, and be reasonably attributed to the massive investments in training and professionalism that I have personally witnessed in Canadian constabularies. If best practices in Toronto spread to American cities, lives truly could be saved. But instead, progressives such as Singh are far more interested in polluting Twitter with lazy lies and protest applause lines that erase any distinction between policing methods.
Information about the death of Korchinski-Paquet may be found on the website of Ontario’s SIU. And if there are lessons to be gleaned about how to better respond to potentially violent family crises, our leaders should implement them. But so far, police critics seem far more interested in exploiting this poor woman’s death to advance their own ideological bona fides and defame innocent police officers than with preventing future tragedies.
Jonathan Kay is Canadian Editor of Quillette. He tweets at @jonkay.
Correction: The original version of this article erroneously indicated that the average number of Torontonians who die annually in police-involved actions is about one. In fact, it is closer to three. The text has been corrected accordingly.
We bounced along a pitted dirt road on an Indigenous reserve in Northern Ontario. As I leaned on my horn to convince a bored looking, semi-feral stray dog to move out of our path, I chatted with my passenger. She was a young Indigenous woman who worked at our police detachment as an administration assistant. It was midnight, and I was driving her home at the end of her shift because dangers—both canine and human—rendered it unsafe for our civilian staff members to walk home alone after dark. This woman, who I’ll call Grace, was 23 years old. She had recently returned to the reserve after spending a year in southern Ontario attending university. Raised in a home with two alcoholic parents, by the age of 14 she was pregnant. Another child with another father would follow before her 18th birthday. Neither of these men remained in her life.
Despite these challenges, Grace was a voracious reader who loved school. With the help of a supportive teacher and various government programs, she was able to complete school and get accepted to university. An arrangement was made whereby she would attend university down south while her parents, by now recovering alcoholics, looked after her children. Unfortunately, this potential success story would end in failure. Within a year, Grace’s parents had returned to drinking and she was forced to choose between withdrawing from school and returning to care for her children or losing them to foster care. She chose the former and the intergenerational cycle of defeat continued.
Activists invariably claim “racism” or a “lack of funding” are behind stories like these. But these are simplistic characterizations of complex problems. No fair-minded person wants to see a person like Grace fail. Indeed, recent years have seen a groundswell of public support demanding better outcomes for people like her. And Grace’s situation can hardly be attributed to a “lack of funding.” The financial and social supports were in place to help her achieve her goals. What undermined her were deep-rooted social pathologies that simply cannot be solved through corporate diversity programs, increased government funding, or vituperative Twitter campaigns that seek to defenestrate those who fail to stay current with the malleable tenets of the zeitgeist.
As a now senior Canadian police officer in my third decade of service, I have reflected on this experience quite a bit recently. Current orthodoxy would ascribe Grace’s situation to “systemic” racism. As I watch media, activists, academics, and opportunistic politicians push each other aside to denounce the men and women who patrol our communities as pawns of a systemically racist institution, I have been struck by the passionate intensity of their accusations. As I write this, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Brenda Lucki, is fighting for her professional survival after admitting publicly that she “struggled” with the definition of systemic racism. For me and many other officers these attacks are bewildering because Commissioner Lucki echoes sentiments many of us hold. Some will argue that this is because we suffer from blind spots due to our privilege. Perhaps. But to that I would respond that our experience as police officers entitles us to a unique perspective on these issues not readily apparent to anyone who has never worn the uniform.
As calls to “defund police” continue, academics, activists, politicians, and other public figures are re-evaluating the role law enforcement plays in liberal democratic societies. In and of itself, this isn’t a bad thing. Societies are fluid, and society’s institutions must be fluid too. For years, a debate has raged within police and criminological circles about what exactly police should be doing. Mental health provides one example. Since the 1970s, virtually every jurisdiction in the Western world began the process of deinstitutionalization, which saw those suffering from psychiatric disorders treated within the community rather than warehoused in asylums. While this was a humane evolution, it also resulted in police officers becoming the default option when a person with a psychiatric disorder suffers emotional distress. Recent events have shown that this model needs re-evaluation. A greater emphasis on community-based mental health supports would be welcomed by mental health professionals, patient advocates, and police alike.
Another area in which activists and police leaders would no doubt find common ground relates to police accountability. Since the 1960s, the job protections afforded to police officers have grown exponentially stronger. There are legitimate reasons for this. Policing is an adversarial profession, and police officers need protections beyond those offered to other professions so that they can do their job effectively without being subject to improper influence. Think of a police officer who pulls over a powerful public figure for drunk driving. It benefits society that the officer can do his duty, confident that he will not be penalized for it. But the current police accountability system has grown dysfunctional. Disciplinary processes routinely take years rather than months and now rival criminal prosecutions in their complexity. The result is that it has become nearly impossible for police services to terminate the employment of incompetent, corrupt, or abusive officers. Any reforms that made this process more manageable would be warmly embraced by both civil libertarians and police leadership.
But while the need for some police reforms is apparent, the current debate has reached a fevered pitch. Otherwise responsible politicians and public figures have determined that policing as an institution is broken and systematically racist. This is a mischaracterization and it does a disservice to the thousands of dedicated police officers who serve their communities diligently every day. More ominously, it corrodes one of the key institutions that anchor the liberal democratic state. Systemic racism is a malleable concept. As praxis for the social justice movement, its obscurity is its strength because its existence does not have to be supported by specific evidence. In the current environment, systemic racism has become a pseudo-religious concept, an invisible yet malevolent force that torments the oppressed from within society’s institutions. As such, failure to declare sufficient fealty to efforts opposing it provide a ready cudgel with which the mob can denounce anyone who disputes the febrile excesses of social justice activism.
When anti-racism activists cite evidence of systemic racism, they invariably point to statistics that demonstrate marginalized people make up a disproportionate share of those involved adversely with the justice system. In Canada, this is reflected in the oft-cited statistic that Indigenous Canadians make up five percent of the population but now account for 30 percent of the federal inmate population, up significantly since the year 2000. Activists claim this proves that systemic racism not only exists, but is growing, and they identify “over-policing” as the root cause of this disparity. But are Indigenous communities really over-policed?
Over the last 20 years there has been a massive increase in awareness of Indigenous issues in Canada. Police forces throughout the country now train officers in bias management, Indigenous history and other methodologies designed to foster critical thinking and social awareness. The Canadian justice system for its part has made significant structural changes to address the high proportion of Indigenous inmates in the prison population, most notably through the Gladue principles which require judges to take an Indigenous accused’s background into account during sentencing, usually resulting in a reduced sentence. Amid this increased awareness is it logical to conclude that those who work within the justice system have become more racist?
A closer examination of the facts would suggest otherwise. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, for instance, found that on-reserve Indigenous people in Canada are charged with fewer property offences than non-Indigenous people but more violent ones.1 This suggests that, if anything, officers are more lenient when dealing with Indigenous offenders for minor property crimes and engage the criminal justice system only in the case of more serious offences in which a victim has been the subject of violence. That was certainly my experience when I worked in those communities. It’s also notable that over a third of Indigenous men in federal prisons are serving sentences for sexual offences.2 These charges are by nature complaint-generated rather than resulting from discretionary policing practices.
In reality, the underlying cause of high rates of Indigenous incarceration results from higher rates of criminality. That’s not a moral judgement. Toxic combinations of poverty, geographic isolation, family breakdown, and substance abuse underpin this pathology. Demographic differences do as well—46 percent of the Indigenous Canadian population is under the age of 25 compared to only 30 percent in the non-Indigenous population. As anyone who witnessed the surge in crime rates that occurred as the baby boomers reached adulthood in the 1960s and 1970s can attest, populations with a large cohort of young people experience much higher crime rates. None of these factors is subject to influence from law enforcement.
Beyond statistics, one only needs to follow current events to witness the differential treatment that police deliver to Indigenous communities. In February of this year, a group of Indigenous protestors barricaded the busiest rail line in Canada over a political dispute. For weeks, the country’s economy ground to a halt as police declined to enforce court injunctions and negotiated with the protestors. This was by no means an aberration. A decade ago, Indigenous protestors barricaded parts of a town in south-western Ontario for months, issuing Indigenous “passports” to local non-Indigenous residents that regulated access to and from their own homes. Media crews and members of the public were assaulted on numerous occasions while police officers stood by, rarely intervening.3 It is hard to envision any non-Indigenous group of protestors, regardless of the cause, being treated with such deference by Canadian law enforcement.
But these nuances are lost in the current reductionist environment. Journalists, traditionally skeptical gate keepers of knowledge who once prided themselves on swimming against the current of prevailing social trends, now lead the charge to storm the ramparts. Every negative interaction between a police officer and an Indigenous or other racialized person is now sensationalized as further proof that policing is brutal and racist, with some going so far as to suggest that policing should be completely abolished. Such radicalism was once the exclusive purview of rabid student unions or delusional freemen on the land. Today this madness has found its way into the opinion pages of formerly venerable liberal establishment newspapers like the New York Times.
While I’m troubled by these developments, it’s not the criticism that bothers me. After all, I’m now on the back nine of what has been a successful and satisfying career. What does scare me, more as a citizen than a police officer, is the attempt by opportunistic politicians, academics, and much of the media to completely delegitimize law enforcement as an institution. 2020 has brought a pandemic, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1919, an economic collapse that rivals that of 1929, and social unrest reminiscent of 1968. If anything, this year has shown us how fragile the fabric that binds society can be. The coming year promises more disruption as the government largesse that has alleviated much of the economic pain caused by lockdowns begins to run out just as the United States enters what promises to be its most contentious election since the Civil War. There is a real danger that millions of people now marching in support of Black Lives Matter and snapping up copies of White Fragility will find themselves facing economic catastrophe as mortgages come due and small business owners give up. Under such circumstances, it’s not hard to envision an environment where those now professing allyship to the contemporary social justice movement revert to the more traditional human quality of tribalism, something that has existed in our nature since the first group of humans met the second group of humans on the African savannah.
If that happens, the only hope civilization has is a shared respect for the institutions that have been built up over centuries. Rule of law, responsible government, a free press that adheres to journalistic principles, and yes, professional law enforcement that enjoys broad-based public support. Without that shared understanding, we as a society are entering uncharted territory. Those on the Left who currently march shouting that “all cops are bastards” and those on the Right who believe that society’s institutions are all part of the “Deep State swamp” should heed the warning offered by Stanford historian Ian Morris who challenges Ronald Reagan’s famous quip that “the 10 most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’” They are not. In reality, Morris says, the 10 most terrifying words in the English language are “There is no government, and I’m here to kill you.”4
The author is a senior officer with a large police service in Ontario, Canada who has spent most of his career in major crime investigation. He is currently undertaking graduate studies in management. “Mike Wilson” is an alias.
1 Robinson, Viola; Dussault, Rene; Erasmus, George; Chartrand, Paul; Meekison, Peter; Stillett, Mary; Wilson, Bertha: Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Bridging the Cultural Divide—A Report on Aboriginal People and the Criminal Justice System in Canada, February 1996 p. 35.
2 MacGillivary, Anne, Comaskey, Brenda: Black Eyes All the Time: Intimate Violence, Aboriginal Women and the Justice System, University of Toronto Press, 1999 p. 55.
3 Blatchford, Christie, Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy and How the Law Failed All of Us, Houndhead Press, 2011.
4 Morris, Ian, War! What Is It Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, 2014 p. 17.
Image: Brett Morrison (Flickr).
A David vs. Goliath battle between the independent Virginia-based online journal Consortium News and the gigantic Security Communications Establishment of Canada has begun about week ago. As Consortium News’ Editor-in-Chief, Joe Lauria wrote in his recent press release:
“Consortium News has sent libel notices to the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s version of the US National Security Agency, and to a major Canadian television network, Global News, for a report that said Consortium News was “part of a cyber-influence campaign directed by Russia.”
To the knowledge of this Canadian-based writer, no analogous instance of such a lawsuit has ever occurred and the subject of this lawsuit will undoubtedly bring to light some of the ugliest skeletons in the Canadian establishment’s closet that many powerful forces would prefer remain obscured and forgotten.
The Gist of the Fight
On December 10, 2019, Global News ran a widely circulated story citing a classified CSE report which claimed that the Russian Government had used proxies to spread anti-Christia Freeland slander in order to “undermine western democracies”. The CSE report cited by Global News asserted without any evidence that a leading protagonist used by the Russian Government in this endeavor was Consortium News which had run a story on February 27, 2017 entitled the ‘A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet’ which explained how Freeland had knowingly covered up the fact that her grandfather Mykhailo Chomiak was a high level Nazi collaborator during WWII.
Since the publication of this 2017 article and the work published even earlier by John Helmer, an fuller picture of Freeland’s Nazi family history and broader post-WWII use of Nazi-affiliated Ukrainian nationalists has become a thoroughly documented embarrassment for Freeland and the broader deep state/Five Eyes Intelligence conglomerate trying to run the world. This history is even more awkward since the use of hives of second and third generation descendants of these Nazi collaborators both in Canada and Ukraine resulted in the toppling of the pro-Eurasian Yanukovych government in 2014.
After decades of myth-making and spin-doctoring, the Canadian spy agencies managing mass perceptions of the population have developed more than a little hubris as their lies have too often passed unchallenged by their victims, making this situation a nice slap of reality.
Since so much has already been written on the issue of Canada’s Nazi problem (namely here, and here and here and here), I would like to do something a bit different and address the deeper question: What is the Canadian Communication Security Establishment exactly, and from where did the Five Eyes arise over the course of the previous century?”
Getting at the Heart of the Five Eyes
To properly answer this with a full appreciation into the historic forces at play, it is vital to jump back in time to the founder of the Rhodes Scholar program that birthed the Freeland phenomenon in our modern age (Freeland after all a leading Rhodes Scholar and it would do us well to fully understand what that means). This exercise will take us to Cecil Rhodes, Governor of Rhodesia, father of systemic colonial rape of Africa and all around degenerate.
Here we shall find ourselves looking at this degenerate’s 1877 will and testament. It was here that the self-described “race patriot” and “priest of the Church of the British Empire” called for a re-organization of the decaying empire when he said:
_“_Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…”
Upon Rhodes’ 1902 death, his will served as a manifesto or “guiding spirit” underlying the formation of the deep state and later Five Eyes throughout the 20th century. Rhodes’ followers and upper level financiers of London like Lord Nathaniel Rothschild and Lord Milner established a scholarship in his name to indoctrinate talented youth from around the world in the halls of Oxford in order to be redeployed back into their home countries in order to infiltrate all branches of influence public and private with a focus upon departments of Foreign Affairs. As the late Georgetown Professor Carrol Quigley documented in his Anglo-American Establishment, an international group was created by Rhodes’ disciples named The Round Table led by Milner, Lord Lothian, Leo Amery, and Lionel Curtis who created branches in all Anglo-Saxon nations to coordinate this new British Empire under the banner of “Round Table Movements”.
This group found an early opponent in the form of a Lincoln-admiring Canadian Prime Minister named Wilfred Laurier who had then been striving for deeper cooperation with a USA and independence from Britain (the USA at this time still had a very strong anti-imperial political culture). Sadly in 1911, Laurier’s government was taken down by a Roundtable-steered coup resulting in the defeated Prime Minister famously stating:
“Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as ‘The Round Table’, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”
That comment was made in 1915.
By 1916, the Group, under Milner’s leadership initiated a soft coup in Britain unseating the Labour Party’s Herbert Asquith in order to shape the terms of the post WWI order.
The CFR and Death of the League of Nations
During the Versailles Process of 1919, the Round Table Group then firmly in charge of the British Government and Foreign Policy infrastructure created a powerful new think tank called the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) which set up sister branches in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The American branch of the RIIA took the name Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921 and was fully staffed with indoctrinated Rhodes Scholars and Fabians all loyal to Rhodes’ vision. This was the group that attempted to impose world government under the League of Nations throughout the 1920s-1930s until it was finally killed by American (and Canadian) nationalists who preferred not to sacrifice their sovereignty to a bankers’ dictatorship.
If you want to know what caused the Five Eyes to come into being and how the USA lost its core anti-imperial character during the 20th century, you would have no satisfying answer if you avoided this fact as too many are in the habit of doing.
In spite of resistance from Laurier’s leading anti-Round Table allies who took back power in 1921 and anti-imperial forces in American who resisted Round Table control over the U.S. State Department under President Harding, the British/CFR problem only became more pronounced by the end of WWII as FDR stated to his son in a moment of frustration in 1943:
“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that! I was told six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”
FDR’s son ominously recorded his father saying: “I’ll take care of these matters myself’ was Roosevelt’s now usual response on matters of crucial policy. ‘I am the only person I can trust’.”[Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It (1946)]
The Five Eyes grows over FDR’s dead body
Even though American-British coded signal sharing began in 1943, no institutional takeover of American intelligence had yet occurred and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was still firmly under control of American nationalists loyal to FDR’s anti-colonial philosophy.
All of that changed with FDR’s April 1945 death and the Round Table groups embedded throughout America’s bureaucracy quickly took over as an Anglophile puppet named Harry Truman became president. Under Truman, the OSS was disbanded, and a new order was installed with the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the UKUSA Signal Intelligence Agreement of March 5, 1946 and the September 8, 1947 formation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Patriots loyal to FDR’s post-war vision like Henry Wallace, Harry Dexter White, and Paul Robeson were torn down under the FBI dictatorship known as McCarthyism.
The policy of cultivating useful Ukrainian intelligence agents who had been loyal to Hitler’s agenda and could again be useful in the new war against the Soviet Union in the newly emerging Cold War was hatched in the dirty basement of this post-OSS intelligence complex.
This new order of integrated intelligence saw the birth of the NSA in America, the Communications Security Establishment in Canada and sister organizations in Australia and New Zealand- all coordinating closely with the Royal Institutes/Round Table groups located in each Anglo Saxon nation. This was the fulfilment of Rhodes’ vision and the origins of the Five Eyes. Approaching modern history from this standpoint allows the mind to see clearly that while the American NSA/CIA hand certainly played a dirty role in the post-WWII order, the true guiding mind has always been found an ocean away from America.
The Cat is Stuffed Back into the Bag
Throughout the first three decades of the Cold War, the Five Eyes remained a total secret even to elected politicians. Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was so shocked to discover the existence of covert intelligence connections between the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) alongside its American and British counterparts that he fired its director in 1975. In response to the Prime Minister’s defiance of imperial policy, Sir John Kerr (Australia’s Governor General and actual Head of State) sacked Whitlam in 1975, proving that contrary to popular belief, the Crown’s powers are much more than the symbolic image which today’s perception managers wish us to believe.
In America, a decade of assassinations as well as blatant CIA-run coups abroad resulted in a popular indignation and demand for justice resulting in the famous Church Committee hearings on CIA abuses. In response to this exposure, upper level Deep State assets like Sir Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski conducted two purges of the CIA (1970 and 1978), abolished what little remained of the Board of National Estimates in 1973 and moved many of the CIA’s international covert operations to a new organization which came to be known as the National Endowment for Democracy as outlined in my previous article on the subject.
In Canada a documentary aired on the Fifth Estate entitled ‘The Espionage Establishment’ in 1974 exposing the public to the Five Eyes and shed light for the first time to the Communications Security Establishment of Canada resulting in hearings in the House of Commons and Senate and a modest restructuring of the organization. While nothing systemic was ultimately addressed, lipstick was put onto the pig as the newly renamed Communications Security Establishment absorbed into the Department of Defense. When CSIS was created in 1984 (after the RCMP’s Intelligence branch was caught red handed organizing the FLQ terrorist cells one too many times), the CSE and new spy agency began coordinating closely with each other and today occupy adjacent buildings from each other in Ottawa.
The natural righteous indignation felt by the masses petered away under a culture of consumerism, cynicism and conformism resulting in a slide into decay which no patriot of FDR’s generation could have imagined possible. Occasional bursts of angst and rage in the popular zeitgeist were absorbed and redirected by Hollywood films like Soylent Green (1973), The Network (1976) and 1984 (1984) (to name a few). Rather than empower the population such films were designed to amplify impotent cynicism, defeatism and misdirect anger towards un-nameable shadowy corporate forces (Soylent Green), Saudi oil barons (the Network), or human nature itself (1984).
With the belief that the causes of injustices could either not be understood, or were supposed to be intrinsic to the human species, the population went to sleep and dream walked into the New World Order.
Those core moral principles which leaders like John Kennedy or Martin Luther King fought to awaken in the nation were rejected by the majority of baby boomers as mere naïve fantasy with no connection to “reality” as they were told it to be. But sadly, without core principles, post-truth liberalism found fertile soil to spread its roots. It is this post-truth order which serves as foundation of today’s liberal order which Freeland has chosen to champion on behalf of those forces and heirs of Rhodes’ vision who wish to become the lords of a uni-polar world.
At this point, you might be asking me: what was the point of writing all this? Wasn’t this article supposed to be about Consortium News’ legal suite against the Communications Security Establishment? Wasn’t it just about exposing Freeland’s Nazi pedigree?
While that is true, as I also said at the beginning, this article is also about David vs. Goliath.
David could not defeat Goliath physically under any circumstance that muscle ruled the fight, but David understood his opponent even better than his opponent understood himself. The fact is by tacking on the Canadian branch of the Five Eyes’ protection and use of bonafide Nazis past and present, Consortium News has potentially opened up an infected wound which has nearly brought our civilization to gangrenous levels of decay.
By really understanding the nature of today’s enemy in the same manner as David understood Goliath, and then recognizing a few tiny weaknesses visible in its armor, even a small stone can accomplish miracles.
Police in Versailles, France, confronting protesters Jan. 20, 2020. (Still from video tweeted by Lucas Leger, @lucas_rtfrance.)
By David Climenhaga
The government of President Emmanuel Macron has introduced a scheme to overhaul pensions and retirement benefits for many workers, done as usual in the name of reform, rationalization and simplification. For most French workers, though, it will result in a significant reduction in pensions and loss of retirement security.
Among the changes would be a higher statutory retirement age, although still lower than Canada’s. Also, pensions for workers in high-risk and athletic occupations would be based on their earnings over time instead of the terms negotiated by their unions that recognize the danger they face, limits on their careers, and the contribution to society they make. Again, this is already the norm in Canada. There would also be reductions in negotiated early retirement benefits, and so on.
“The proposed change would thus, in practical terms, be financed on the backs of workers, who would be expected to work longer with less pay and security, rather than being paid for by increased taxes on corporations or the wealthy,” writes cultural theorist Gabriel Rockhill in Counterpunch.
French workers have responded by pouring into the streets, organizing massive demonstrations and paralyzing the entire country through a series rotating general strikes.
The disruption is severe. The danger in the streets is real, given the vicious response of the militarized French police.
Les manifestants repoussés par les FDO de #Macron dans les rues de #Versailles. #DémissionMacron #GreveGenerale #GiletsJaunes #greve20janvier #Acte63 #ViolencesPolicierespic.twitter.com/y12wj07N9q
— Mireille Paradis (@ParadisMireille) January 20, 2020
Indeed, the government of Canada recognizes this, warning Canadians in a detailed travel advisory updated last month under the heading “General Strike” that “a large-scale general strike is ongoing across the country since December 5, 2019.”
“This movement could continue for an indefinite period,” the advisory continued. “Demonstrations and significant service disruptions, including to transportation, are to be expected.” Indeed, at one point the Paris Metro was shut down, with only a few automated trains operating.
Warning to Travelers
Moreover, the Global Affairs Canada advisory goes on, “demonstrations take place regularly. Even peaceful demonstrations can turn violent at any time.”
And yet, in Canada there is virtually no news in mainstream media on these significant events in a modern, Western European country. If you want to get a sense of what’s going on, you’ll have to dig deep, seek alternative news sources, some of them pretty sketchy, and even then, there’s not much information.
One would think news of a nationwide disruption over pension policies would be of interest here in Alberta, for example, where the provincial government is hatching its own dangerous pension schemes and popular opposition, already significant, is growing. Instead, nothing but crickets.
The only point at which the ongoing general strikes and resulting nationwide chaos in France have even caused a ripple of attention in Canadian media was when Macron’s government introduced a “compromise” a few days ago to try to placate the nationwide opposition. If Rockhill’s analysis is right, the changes in the compromise are not very significant. A few stories appeared, disdainful in tone when they mentioned the general strikers’ positions, and then the curtain fell again.
At a glance, it would appear this phenomenon is not quite as severe elsewhere in the English-speaking world, although coverage is nevertheless sparse. The New York Times published a piece this month, mainly based on the oddity that in a Paris, even ballet dancers are on strike. Memo to the Times’ news desk: professional dancers are workers too, and like pro hockey players, they have short careers due to the limitations of the human body. The BBC publishes an occasional story.
Striking ballet dancers perform at the entrance to the Opera Garnier in Paris, Dec. 24, 2019. (YouTube screenshot)
In Canada, however, the blackout is almost total.
What gives? For those with a conspiratorial turn of mind, it would appear at least it’s not the government of Canada, which is after all prepared to warn tourists of the danger and state the basic reason for it.
Is the problem finding news about this because there isn’t any being written, or does it have to do with the organization of major search engines, like Google?
And why is there such a dereliction of duty day after day by Canadian media, private sector and state owned alike? Is it because they think we won’t be interested because we’ve mostly already lost, or never had, the benefits French workers are fighting to retain?
Or do they think we’re better off not knowing? Having worked many years in the newspaper industry, I find it hard to believe local managers would think thoughts like these. A riot’s a riot, as far as most of them are concerned — or used to be, anyway. But then, times have changed since I left, and the focus of the Canadian news business is more ideological, resources are fewer, and analysis is shallower.
The goal of the strikers now seems to be to bring down the government. If they succeed, will that be reported?
I certainly don’t recall media refusing to cover major upheavals in Western Europe in the past. Newspapers were full of reports of similar violence in France in 1968, for example. But that was a long time ago, of course.
I suppose some combination of laziness, inattention, lack of intellectual curiosity, herd instinct and a bureaucratic turn of mind, all of which plague modern Canadian media corporations, private and public, is the simplest and most likely explanation. It’s also true that there have been some other, very big stories in the past few days.
Still, I have trouble imagining a similar demonstration this week or next in Russia, say, or Hong Kong, would pass with so little notice.
And yet, we hear … rien. This is bizarre. What’s going on?
David J. Climenhaga is an award-winning journalist, author, post-secondary teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions at the Toronto Globe and Mail and Calgary Herald. His 1995 book, “A Poke in the Public Eye,” explores the relationships among Canadian journalists, public relations people and politicians.
This article is from Albertapolitics.ca and reprinted with permission.
Last year a mysterious shipment was caught smuggling Coronavirus from Canada. It was traced to Chinese agents working at a Canadian lab. Subsequent investigation by GreatGameIndia linked the agents to Chinese Biological Warfare Program from where the virus is suspected to have leaked causing the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak.
Coronavirus Bioweapon – How Chinese agents stole Coronavirus from Canada and weaponized it into a Bioweapon
The Saudi SARS Sample
On June 13, 2012 a 60-year-old Saudi man was admitted to a private hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with a 7-day history of fever, cough, expectoration, and shortness of breath. He had no history of cardiopulmonary or renal disease, was receiving no long-term medications, and did not smoke.
Egyptian virologist Dr. Ali Mohamed Zaki isolated and identified a previously unknown coronavirus from his lungs. After routine diagnostics failed to identify the causative agent, Zaki contacted Ron Fouchier, a leading virologist at the Erasmus Medical Center (EMC) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, for advice.
Abnormalities on Chest Imaging of the Saudi patient infected with Coronavirus. Shown are chest radiographs of the patient on the day of admission (Panel A) and 2 days later (Panel B) and computed tomography (CT) 4 days after admission (Panel C).
Fouchier sequenced the virus from a sample sent by Zaki. Fouchier used a broad-spectrum “pan-coronavirus” real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method to test for distinguishing features of a number of known coronaviruses known to infect humans.
This undated file image released by the British Health Protection Agency shows an electron microscope image of a coronavirus, part of a family of viruses that cause ailments including the common cold and SARS, which was first identified in the Middle East. HANDOUT/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This Coronavirus sample was acquired by Scientific Director Dr. Frank Plummer of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg directly from Fouchier, who received it from Zaki. This virus was reportedly stolen from the Canadian lab by Chinese agents.
The Canadian Lab
Coronavirus arrived at Canada’s NML Winnipeg facility on May 4, 2013 from the Dutch lab. The Canadian lab grew up stocks of the virus and used it to assess diagnostic tests being used in Canada. Winnipeg scientists worked to see which animal species can be infected with the new virus.
Research was done in conjunction with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s national lab, the National Centre for Foreign Animal Diseases which is housed in the same complex as the National Microbiology Laboratory.
The National Microbiology Lab (The Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health) on Arlington St. in Winnipeg. Wayne Glowacki/Winnipeg Free Press Oct.22 2014
NML has a long history of offering comprehensive testing services for coronaviruses. It isolated and provided the first genome sequence of the SARS coronavirus and identified another coronavirus NL63 in 2004.
This Winnipeg based Canadian lab was targeted by Chinese agents in what could be termed as Biological Espionage.
Chinese Biological Espionage
In March 2019, in mysterious event a shipment of exceptionally virulent viruses from Canada’s NML ended up in China. The event caused a major scandal with Bio-warfare experts questioning why Canada was sending lethal viruses to China. Scientists from NML said the highly lethal viruses were a potential bio-weapon.
Following investigation, the incident was traced to Chinese agents working at NML. Four months later in July 2019, a group of Chinese virologists were forcibly dispatched from the Canadian National Microbiology Laboratory (NML). The NML is Canada’s only level-4 facility and one of only a few in North America equipped to handle the world’s deadliest diseases, including Ebola, SARS, Coronavirus, etc.
Xiangguo Qiu – The Chinese Bio-Warfare Agent
The NML scientist who was escorted out of the Canadian lab along with her husband, another biologist, and members of her research team is believed to be a Chinese Bio-Warfare agent Xiangguo Qiu. Qiu was the head of the Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies Section in the Special Pathogens Program at Canada’s NML.
Xiangguo Qiu is an outstanding Chinese scientist born in Tianjin. She primarily received her medical doctor degree from Hebei Medical University in China in 1985 and came to Canada for graduate studies in 1996. Later on, she was affiliated with the Institute of Cell Biology and the Department of Pediatrics and Child Health of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, not engaged with studying pathogens.
Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, the Chinese Biological Warfare Agent working at the National Microbiology Laboratory, Canada
But a shift took place, somehow. Since 2006, she has been studying powerful viruses in Canada’s NML. The viruses shipped from the NML to China were studied by her in 2014, for instance (together with the viruses Machupo, Junin, Rift Valley Fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever and Hendra).
Infiltrating the Canadian Lab
Dr. Xiangguo Qiu is married to another Chinese scientist – Dr. Keding Cheng, also affiliated with the NML, specifically the “Science and Technology Core”. Dr. Cheng is primarily a bacteriologist who shifted to virology. The couple is responsible for infiltrating Canada’s NML with many Chinese agents as students from a range of Chinese scientific facilities directly tied to China’s Biological Warfare Program, namely:
- Institute of Military Veterinary, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Changchun
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chengdu Military Region
- Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hubei
- Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
Sources say Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng were escorted from the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg on July 5, 2019. Since then, the University of Manitoba has ended their appointments, reassigned her graduate students, and cautioned staff, students and faculty about traveling to China. (Governor General’s Innovation Awards)
All of the above four mentioned Chinese Biological Warfare facilities collaborated with Dr. Xiangguo Qiu within the context of Ebola virus, the Institute of Military Veterinary joined a study on the Rift Valley fever virus too, while the Institute of Microbiology joined a study on Marburg virus. Noticeably, the drug used in the latter study – Favipiravir – has been earlier tested successfully by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences, with the designation JK-05 (originally a Japanese patent registered in China already in 2006), against Ebola and additional viruses.
However, the studies by Dr. Qiu are considerably more advanced and apparently vital for the Chinese biological weapons development in case Coronavirus, Ebola, Nipah, Marburg or Rift Valley fever viruses are included therein.
The Canadian investigation is ongoing and questions remain whether previous shipments to China of other viruses or other essential preparations, took place from 2006 to 2018, one way or another.
Dr. Gary Kobinger, former chief of special pathogens (right), and Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, research scientist (second from right) met with Dr. Kent Brantly and Dr. Linda Mobula, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the physician who administered ZMapp to Brantly in Liberia when he was infected with Ebola during the 2014-16 outbreak. (Submitted by Health Canada)
Dr. Xiangguo Qiu also collaborated in 2018 with three scientists from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Maryland, studying post-exposure immunotherapy for two Ebola viruses and Marburg virus in monkeys; a study supported by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
The Wuhan Coronavirus
Dr. Xiangguo Qiu made at least five trips over the school year 2017-18 to the above mentioned Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which was certified for BSL4 in January 2017. Moreover, in August 2017, the National Health Commission of China approved research activities involving Ebola, Nipah, and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever viruses at the Wuhan facility.
Coincidentally, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located only 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market which is the epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak dubbed the Wuhan Coronavirus.
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is located just about 20 miles away from the Huanan Seafood Market, the epicenter of Coronavirus outbreak
The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory is housed at the Chinese military facility Wuhan Institute of Virology linked to China’s Biological Warfare Program. It was the first ever lab in the country designed to meet biosafety-level-4 (BSL-4) standards – the highest biohazard level, meaning that it would be qualified to handle the most dangerous pathogens.
In January 2018, the lab was operational ‘for global experiments on BSL-4 pathogens,’ wrote Guizhen Wu in the journal Biosafety and Health. ‘After a laboratory leak incident of SARS in 2004, the former Ministry of Health of China initiated the construction of preservation laboratories for high-level pathogens such as SARS, coronavirus, and pandemic influenza virus,’ wrote Guizhen Wu.
The Wuhan institute has studied coronaviruses in the past, including the strain that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, H5N1 influenza virus, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue. Researchers at the institute also studied the germ that causes anthrax – a biological agent once developed in Russia.
“Coronaviruses (particularly SARS) have been studied in the institute and are probably held therein,” said Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese biowarfare. He said. “SARS is included within the Chinese BW program, at large, and is dealt with in several pertinent facilities.”
James Giordano, a neurology professor at Georgetown University and senior fellow in Biowarfare at the U.S. Special Operations Command, said China’s growing investment in bio-science, looser ethics around gene-editing and other cutting-edge technology and integration between government and academia raise the spectre of such pathogens being weaponized.
That could mean an offensive agent, or a modified germ let loose by proxies, for which only China has the treatment or vaccine. “This is not warfare, per se,” he said. “But what it’s doing is leveraging the capability to act as global saviour, which then creates various levels of macro and micro economic and bio-power dependencies.”
China’s Biological Warfare Program
In a 2015 academic paper, Shoham – of Bar-Ilan’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies – asserts that more than 40 Chinese facilities are involved in bio-weapon production.
China's Biological Warfare Program is believed to include full range of traditional chemical & biological agents with a wide variety of delivery systems including artillery rockets, aerial bombs, sprayers, and short-range ballistic missiles. #coronarovirus https://t.co/7qpDNNmqk7
— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) January 25, 2020
China’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences actually developed an Ebola drug – called JK-05 — but little has been divulged about it or the defence facility’s possession of the virus, prompting speculation its Ebola cells are part of China’s bio-warfare arsenal, Shoham told the National Post.
Ebola is classified as a “category A” bioterrorism agent by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meaning it could be easily transmitted from person to person, would result in high death rates and “might cause panic.” The CDC lists Nipah as a category C substance, a deadly emerging pathogen that could be engineered for mass dissemination.
China’s Biological Warfare Program is believed to be in an advanced stage that includes research and development, production and weaponization capabilities. Its current inventory is believed to include the full range of traditional chemical and biological agents with a wide variety of delivery systems including artillery rockets, aerial bombs, sprayers, and short-range ballistic missiles.
China’s national strategy of military-civil fusion has highlighted biology as a priority, and the People’s Liberation Army could be at the forefront of expanding and exploiting this knowledge.
Weaponizing Biotech - China's War for Biological Dominance#coronoavirushttps://t.co/MEVQ5VERJw
— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) January 25, 2020
The PLA is pursuing military applications for biology and looking into promising intersections with other disciplines, including brain science, supercomputing, and artificial intelligence. Since 2016, the Central Military Commission has funded projects on military brain science, advanced biomimetic systems, biological and biomimetic materials, human performance enhancement, and “new concept” biotechnology.
In 2016, an AMMS doctoral researcher published a dissertation, “Research on the Evaluation of Human Performance Enhancement Technology,” which characterized CRISPR-Cas as one of three primary technologies that might boost troops’ combat effectiveness. The supporting research looked at the effectiveness of the drug Modafinil, which has applications in cognitive enhancement; and at transcranial magnetic stimulation, a type of brain stimulation, while also contending that the “great potential” of CRISPR-Cas as a “military deterrence technology in which China should “grasp the initiative” in development.
In 2016, the potential strategic value of genetic information led the Chinese government to launch the National Genebank, which intends to become the world’s largest repository of such data. It aims to “develop and utilize China’s valuable genetic resources, safeguard national security in bioinformatics, and enhance China’s capability to seize the strategic commanding heights” in the domain of Biotechnology Warfare.
Chinese military’s interest in biology as an emerging domain of warfare is guided by strategists who talk about potential “genetic weapons” and the possibility of a “bloodless victory.”
Vanessa Beeley, the award-winning journalist who has gained notoriety for her on the ground reporting on the Syrian conflict has faced opposition in her efforts to speak to Canadian audiences at the invitation of local anti war activists.
According to Ken Stone of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, a lead organizer of Beeley’s cross-Canada speaking tour, six venues have so far backed away from hosting the UK journalist’s talks. These include Palestine House in Mississauga, the Steelworkers Hall in Toronto, St. Paul’s University in Ottawa, the University of Montreal, the University of Winnipeg, and the Millenium Library, also in Winnipeg.
Stone explains that the withdrawal from agreements at each venue to host Beeley were preceded by the circulation of at least two hit pieces on the journalist upon her arrival in Canada – one by [La Presse](https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/education/201912/03/01-5252304-conferenciere-complotiste-invitee-a-luniversite-de-montreal.php Conférence controversée d’une complotiste annulée à l’Université de Montréal) in Quebec and one by the Huffington Post. Stone explained that the decision to cancel in each case was precipitated by the circulation of these articles by unknown actors.
“There wasn’t an organized effort, but there were people in individual cities where she was speaking who took it upon themselves to circulate these articles behind the scenes – shadowy figures who tried their very best to scare the managers of various venues into cancelling, and they did so six times.”
The proper name of the tour is ‘Canada’s Dirty War on Syria: The White Helmets and the Regime Change War billionaires.’ Ms. Beeley was intent on presenting her research into Canada’s role in undermining the government of President Bachar Al Assad. Beeley’s message directly contradicts mainstream reporting on the conflict, particularly her research into the White Helmets, which she and other independent journalists classify as a propaganda construct providing public relations cover for regime change efforts and continued economic sanctions that are decimating the country.
The justification for one venue after another cancelling is not clear, as none have officially provided any explanation. According to Stone, however, there were two venues on the tour that allowed the Beeley presentation to take place in spite of this unexpected opposition. One was the New Vision Church in Hamilton. The other was the Knox Metropolitan United Church in Regina. Both Ministers highlighted concerns from a complainant about ‘hate speech’ being directed toward the White Helmets, and the prospect of traumatizing vulnerable Syrian refugees.
Organizers explained to the Ministers that the talks were not about hate speech but rather about highlighting the findings of an independent journalist and war correspondent ‘whose research methods are very thorough’ about the true nature of the Syrian conflict and the role of the White Helmets.
According to an email, forwarded to this author, from the pastor at the Hamilton venue, there was concern expressed about Beeley engaging in ‘hate speech’ toward the White Helmets. According to the pastor at the Regina venue, the letter he received essentially echoed the common, mainstream media reinforced perception that the White Helmets are heroes, that Syrian civilians are fleeing a despotic Syrian regime, and that Beeley is spreading “lies for war criminal Bashar Assad.”
Stone added, “one of the people who spoke to both Ministers about the ‘traumatization’ turned out to be traced back to an address in the state of Washington USA. She was claiming that she was going to be traumatized by Vanessa speaking 4000 miles away!”
Full disclosure: this author was active in trying to secure a venue for Vanessa Beeley at the University of Winnipeg. The deplatforming in this case was a little more complicated. I had apparently used an improper process to secure the space on campus initially. However, when the event coordinator on campus got hold of me and explained the problems with the process, she directed me to find a venue elsewhere. When I asked about the prospects for booking the space by following the proper procedure, and paying the appropriate fees, I was told the event would likely not go ahead owing to problems the President’s Office had with the content.
In spite of multiple attempts to get more details over several days, the university has yet to provide an explanation of precisely what they found objectionable about the ‘content.’
A second venue, the Millennium Library in downtown Winnipeg was secured through friendly staff six days in advance of the event date. However, on Tuesday (Human Rights Day as it turns out) two days before the event was to take place, I received a call from a higher up – the Manager of Library Services. He had expressed regret but that after lengthy deliberations he had with other team members, he determined that the event would violate their guidelines and that he was exercising his right under the contractual agreement to cancel the booking.
No official explanation was offered beyond this although when pressed, this individual did indicate an ‘opinion’ on his part that after reviewing the speaker’s content, the content of the presentation could be construed as hate speech. Overtures to have this manager meet with myself and other organizers to assuage concerns about the event, were rejected. He said his decision was final. He did relent to sending a written explanation of his reasons for cancelling the booking:
“We considered our room usage Regulations and Conditions of use, event content, and community interests in this decision.”
Further correspondence was forwarded to me through a third party about the event planned for the University of Winnipeg from another member of the campus community. The concerns could be summarized as follows:
- Ms. Beeley is promoting ‘harmful’ theories in defence of President Assad.
- She is promoting ‘anti-semitic’ and harmful messaging against the White Helmets, ‘a group that provides vital humanitarian search and rescue operations in areas of Syria subject to intense bombing.’
- the content could be ‘traumatizing’ to the Syrian refugee population at the university.
About a day later, a representative of the university’s student executive had private messaged the organizers through the Winnipeg facebook event page expressing concern about the event. This person echoed the points above. The individual’s facebook page, however, reveals a clear effort to deplatform Vanessa Beeley.
Excerpts (emphasis added)
“Vanessa Beeley has been called “The Syria conflict’s goddess of propaganda.”
As part of a Canadian speaking tour hosted by the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, Vanessa Beeley was supposed to speak at the University of Winnipeg tomorrow, December 12th. But, following pressure and advocacy from the community, the University of Winnipeg cancelled the event. The venue changed to the Millennium library and again after community pressure, they cancelled it. The Hamilton Coalition dropped the event and it looks like its been now picked up by Peace Alliance Winnipeg. All of this has happened within the last 3 days.
Among countless other things;
1) Beeley supports Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, who is responsible for: the murder of more than 400,000 Syrians, over 5.7 million Syrians fleeing the country, and over 6.1 million internally displaced.
2) Beeley has said that the White Helmets, a humanitarian organization with thousands of volunteers who risk their lives rescuing victims of the conflict, are a terrorist organization. The White Helmets were nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.
3) Beeley believes that the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack, which killed 12 and injured 11, was an event staged by the French government.
4) Beeley legitimized an airstrike on Douma, Syria that killed 70 Syrians, stating it was a “legitimate strike on #Douma terrorist nest”.
Beeley’s talk is scheduled for 7:00pm tomorrow at the Winnipeg Chilean Association, 892 Burrows Avenue. Emails have already been sent to the groups involved in organizing tomorrow’s lecture to urge them to cancel the lecture, but since there’s just 24 hours until the lecture, please share this post to make sure that Peace Alliance Winnipeg WILL NOT give Beeley the platform to share lies, conspiracy theories, hateful rhetorics and propaganda.
In all the press coverage of the “the SNC-Lavalin affair,” not enough attention has been paid to the company’s involvement in Site C – the contentious $11 billion dam being constructed in B.C.’s Peace River valley.
The Liberals say that any pressure they put on Jody Wilson-Raybould to rubber-stamp a “deferred prosecution agreement” for SNC-Lavalin was to protect jobs at the company. But the pressure may have been to protect something much bigger: the Liberals’ vision for Canada’s future. Site C epitomises that vision.
The “Many Lives” of Site C
Birthed in 1959 on the drawing boards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and BC Electric (then owned by Montreal-based Power Corp), the Site C dam has been declared dead, then alive, then dead again several times over the next five decades until 2010, when BC Premier Gordon Campbell announced that Site C would proceed. 
Tracking SNC-Lavalin’s involvement in Site C during recent years has been difficult, but Charlie Smith, editor of The Georgia Straight, has filled in some of the missing information.