>>11757845

CANADIANS should compare and contrast today with less than 10 years ago.

2012 - lawmakers look at making it a crime to wear amask during a riot

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/3-things-to-know-about-the-proposed-mask-law-1.1220389

When asked about the proposed law, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police provided a statement saying, "Those who embolden themselves by masking or hiding their identity while participating in a riot or unlawful assembly have a tremendous impact on the safety of those who exercise their right to protest peacefully and lawfully in this country. A right the CACP supports and defends. They also make investigations of these crimes much more difficult."

Tom Stamatakis, president of both the Canadian Police Association and the Vancouver Police Union, says that when "protesters start to engage in any kind of assaultive behaviour involving other people, or even protesters themselves or police, or when they’re starting to cause damage to property, to vehicles or business, that changes the situation," from a mere protest to something more severe and criminal.

According to the Criminal Code, disguising your face means putting a covering over it or colouring it to conceal your identity.

Section 351 of the Criminal Code, under the heading "Disguise with intent," states that "Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence."

Bill C-309 would create two classes of offence.

Those who incite a riot while wearing a mask face an indictable offence up to 10 years. Those who participate in such an unlawful assembly while wearing a mask could face up to six months in jail or fines up to $5,000.

2013 - wearing a mask during a riot is against the law.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wearing-a-mask-at-a-riot-is-now-a-crime-1.1306458

A bill that bans the wearing of masks during a riot or unlawful assembly and carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence with a conviction of the offence became law today.

Bill C-309, a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Blake Richards in 2011, passed third reading in the Senate on May 23 and was proclaimed law during a royal assent ceremony in the Senate this afternoon.

The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence that makes it illegal to wear a mask or otherwise conceal your identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.

The bill didn't have unanimous support, and was opposed by some who are concerned about its effect on freedom of expression and privacy. Critics said the measures are unnecessary because the Criminal Code already includes a section about wearing disguises while committing a crime.

Civil liberties advocates argued the measures could create a chilling effect on free speech and that peaceful protesters can unintentionally find themselves involved in an unlawful assembly. They also noted that there are legitimate reasons for wearing masks at protests; some may be worried about reprisals at work, for example, if sighted at a political protest.

"Any law that infringes upon civil liberties needs to be held to a test of absolute necessity, and I don't think that test has been met in this instance," said Michael Byers, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia and a board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in an interview. Byers testified at the Commons justice committee that studied the bill.

Masking has not proven to be an effective measure to help stop the spread; neither has restrictions on travel within the country; neither has social distancing; neither has quarentining healthy individuals based on PCR testing.

None of that has been shown to be effective in stopping the spread.

ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY require evidence to sustain. Lacking such evidence, it is false to say that these measures have been shown to be effective.

In the meantime, the wearing of masks has become an expression of political sentiment. The Charter protects citizens, as individuals and as groups, from being compelled to make political expressions against their will. Further, this is an expression of a sentiment, a feeling, and not a reasoned nor a logical expression of political preference. As such, with blind faith in such a feeling and blind faith induced by fear, the mandating of mask wearing and social distancing amounts to adherence to quasi-superstitious beliefs. The Charter protects freedom of religion as well as conscience liberties and GOVERNMENT can not compel individuals nor groups to express religious beliefs nor to engage in religious rituals against their will. Coercion is not allwed by the CHARTER under these circumstances. The government may not coerce employers to coerce their employees.

OVERALL we are free CANADIAN citizens and the over-reach of government during a government-induced panic, fearmongering, and outright power grab can not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

While SECTION 1 of the CHARTER makes the balancing of rights a means whereby to resolve conflicts between right claims, the test for infringing on these fundnamental freedoms of movement, of expression, of religion, of conscience is one of absolute necessity. That the measures being mandated by government have NOT PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE in stopping the spread tips the balance in favor of protecting these fundamental rights. That the fearmongering that has been promoted by government, and which has been expressed as a pollitical sentiment with mask wearing, for example, does not change that balance one bit. No government in this country is empowered by the citizens to do what has been done by government to our free market nor to our public square. This has been a bald-faced power grab under the cover of a supposed pandemic.

The PCR test is not a measure of actual cases of the virus. It never was such a measure. ADMISSION CASES and deaths are the more reliable mesures and the trends are very favorable even as the PCR test trends, mislabeled as cases, show inclines. This should cause every CANADIAN to question the government's restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

If there was an actual pandemic in early 2020, it is over in late 2020, anyway, and thus the speculative scientific basis for government having imposed the restrictive measures has been removed. THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS for mask wearing was always very suspect and now it is not even plausible.

CANADIANS, take back your freedom.

>>11767456

Compare with NY, USA.

>>11771816, >>11772509, >>11772544, >>11774031, >>11771042 >>11767738, >>11768030

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-on-heels-of-die_b_620084?guccounter=1

https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1329508863796801543

On Heels of Diebold/Premier Purchase, Canadian eVoting Firm Dominion Also Acquires Sequoia, Lies About Chavez Ties in Announcement

ARTICLE is from 22 APR 2010

updated 6 DEC 2010

06/22/2010 02:17 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

The CANADIAN CONNEXION reminds one of the the URANIIUM-1 shell game.

…

In our coverage, we noted the comment of Dominion CEO John Poulos who, in the company’s press release [PDF] announcing the Diebold/Premier asset acquisition, stated ominously: “We are extremely pleased to conclude this transaction, which…will allow Dominion to expand its capabilities and operational footprint to every corner of the United States.”

Not surprisingly, that late Friday announcement didn’t say anything at all about “competition”.

Worse, as The BRAD BLOG has confirmed, the new press release from Dominion simply lied about what the company has and hasn’t purchased from Sequoia, a company which had lied themselves, for years, about the real ownership of its proprietary voting systems.

Given the enormous share of the U.S. voting “market” now potentially controlled by Dominion — and the now-customary revolving door between public and private officials in the “election industry” which now places former Diebold/Premier officials, former Sequoia officials, and even former state election officials at the helm of the private, little-known Canadian firm — it comes as no surprise that Dominion would hope few in the public actually noticed their sudden acquisition of e-voting assets from some 50% of the U.S. “voting market”.

…

Dominion’s spokesperson, formerly of Diebold, formerly the Press Secretary for the Secretary of State of Georgia, the unfortunately named (at least for a voting-machine company spokesman) Chris Riggall, confirmed the insider’s take to The BRAD BLOG, responding to our queries by noting Dominion “did not purchase any existing contracts, thus market share,” in their agreement to buy the Diebold/Premier assets.

…

As part of a detailed investigative exposé series in 2008, as we broke the story of Hart Intercivic’s quietly attempted hostile takeover of Sequoia, we revealed the fact that — despite representations to the contrary, possibly even to U.S. government investigators — the IP for the vast-majority/near-entirety of Sequoia’s voting systems was actually secretly owned by the Hugo Chavez-tied, Venezuelan-based firm, Smartmatic.

The continuing control of the IP was discovered by The BRAD BLOG long after the (largely) Rightwing outrage which had forced a federal investigation into Smartmatic’s control over American elections had died down. The initial concern had coming following revelations that Smartmatic seemed to be directly tied to the Venezuelan President Chavez. Angry sentiment led by CNN’s Lou Dobbs and some members of Congress (including NY’s Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney) led to an investigation by the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), subsequently forcing Smartmatic to divest of Sequoia. Sequoia was then supposedly purchased away from Smartmatic by a team of its U.S. executives, in order to make it fully independent from the Chavez-tied parent company.

But that divestiture was a lie.

…

Nonetheless, the answer is clear: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is still tied to a huge percentage of U.S. Elections, as now overseen by a Canadian firm.

…

What could possibly go wrong?

As we explained: “So Smith went from voting machine company Hart Intercivic to voting machine company Sequoia Voting Systems and is now at voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems, where he is a VP, selling e-voting systems to jurisdictions around the country that receive federal money doled out by the EAC. And now he’ll also sit on an advisory board at the EAC helping to advise which one of those companies sees their systems certified for use in U.S. elections by the EAC. Just amazing.”

Now, of course, Smith’s power is even more concentrated as his new firm Dominion has acquired his old firm, Sequoia.

Around and around they all go. Where it stops, the voters never need know…

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

https://spencerfernando.com/2019/01/03/i-survived-communism-are-you-ready-for-your-turn/

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it

>>11814209

Not one politician was elected to choose which businesses survive and to which customers will be driven; and those that will be crushed.

The constitutional order does not even leave this arbitrary power up for grabs between different governments. IT DOES NOT EXIST. So the power grab is the first thing to notice here.

Mask wearing among the masses does not stop the spread of viruses. But back up and consider the PCR testing and the statistics being used to throttle Canadians. It is not appropriate to rely on it for diagnosis and was not designed for such a purpose.

In the words of the ONTARIO government's own document that explains how these tests fit into its surveillance of the population and measuring the prevalence the RONA, these case definitions 'are not intended to replace clinical judgement in individual patient assessment'.

Your doctor can diagnose without the test. Your doctor can treat without the test. Your doctor can mark your recovery without a test.

So why does the government encourage mass testing of something for which the testing is not designed and cannot assist?

But even at that, there is a DANISH study which shows that mask wearing does not stop, nor slow, the spread of RONA – as measured by this very type of testing.

The contradictions pile up.

When a government imposes a tiered state of emergency, where people in a low to middle tier are threatened with the fear of being moved into a higher tier with greater and greater restictions, they are meant to be encouraged to accept the underlying, and false, premise that GOVERNMENT can impose a constant state of emergency, in the first place.

People who experience a highly restrictive tier and then are moved to a less restrictive tier, tend to be more compliant in fear of returning to the higher restrictions. But that goes for those who not yet in the lowest tier of restrictions for they do not wish to see their region, their workplace, their lives moved into greater and greater restrictions. And so they are compliant and being prepared by the GOVERNMENT to accept a tyranical authority over their lives. Coercion takes different forms but the goal is to impress upon society that freedom is subject to GOVERNMENT powers to take it all away.

The testing is a fig leaf. The softening up of people is well underway with the rituals of mask wearing indoors and outsdoors and the ritual annoitment of hands at entrances. Employers are coerced to coerce their customers and employees. All become tools of the GOVERNMENT and no longer are free entities.

Mask mandates, and related mandates, are unlawful. The constitutional order does not make GOVERNMENT, any government, the master of the citizens. It is the servant, not the master.

In the CANADIAN constitution, the charter rights of individuals, and of groups, is setup in balance with various rights, including protection of the community's heath and well-being.

That balance is being thrown out and replaced with a different, unlwaful, order in our society.

There can be no doubt that coercing people to wear masks is an infringement on freedom of expression. The mask wearing mandate is a mandate that compels speach; it compels the expression of a political sentiment. THAT SENTIMENT is fear. The message is fearmongering and submission to arbitrary use of governmental powers. This is so even if a private business coerces on behalf of the government - or coerces on its own. The political expression is first and foremost of a feeling, a sentiment, that the authority demands the individual to express whether or not that individual would express it differently, or not at all, or would express disagreement or dissent. Compelled speach is not free speach.

The mandates for mask wearing are also infringements on religious freedom and conscience liberties. The mandates are not based on scientific evidence that the mass wearing of masks prevents the spread of the RONA virus. The evidence goes the other way; these mandates do not prevent the spread. So the GOVERNMENT's basic justification for the mandates is not supported; this is not a matter of being cautious - just in case.

CONTINUED…

The mass testing that drives the justification is not reliable and not designed to help stop the spread. But even when measured by PCR testing, the evidence shows that mass mask wearing does not stop the spread.

The mandates are based on superstition. As such these mandates impose a quasi-religious ritual on indivdiuals, and on groups, despite the constitutional order which guarantees freedom of religious expression, freedom of worship, freedom of conscience. To be coerced to behave as if you were a believer in the superstituous use of masks is to experience a threat to your religious freedom. To be forced to submit so as to run your business, work your job, or to walk the public streets and enter buildings, is to be forced to submit to a GOVERNMENT imposed quasi-religious ritual.

Likewise for the annoitment of hands at entrances. These are rituals that have no sound basis in a scientific response to the RONA virus - especially given the lack of reliable means for testing infectivity through PCR testing.

When you are told that your individual freedoms and liberty is subject to a balancing of individual and community protections, you are pressed to disregard the harm done to your well-being these infringements are harms that go beyond RONA. There is an imbalance when communities are impoverished by the harm done to the economy, to this or that business going bancrupt or teetering on the edge. Harm done to your health by the mandate to wear masks for extended periods of time. Ask yourself if the balancing of rights includes dispsal of masks as if these were bio-hazards. Nope, not included. So the threat to the well-being of the community is not the priority the mask mandates pretend.

Infringement on the well-being of the community is not balanced by a mandate that supposedly is THE MEANS OF BALANCING indivdual and community rights. The mandates, at base, are self-contradictory and self-defeating.

You have the freedom to express political sentiments of your own rather than being coerced to express the political sentiment of fear - and its directly related political message of fearmongering.

You have the GOD-GIVEN freedom of religion and conscience to think, express, and act according to your beliefs. You harm no one by rejecting mask mandates. You are not spreading RONA by objecting to participate in a quasi-religious ritual that the GOVERNMENT, or anyone else, would demand of you.

But mask wearing by these mandates does harm to your well-being - in terms of freedom, in terms of physical and pyshoclogical and social measures. The well-being of the community suffers tremendously and for no benefit to the community.

Perhaps there are good people who suddenly find themselves burdened with decisions about how to implement such mandates. But the premise for such decisions is false. That is why the GOVERNMENT imposes state of emergency tiers to cajole and suppress the reasoning that precedes the imposition of decision-making on how to implement these mandates. Once you are launched into how to implement, you can not return to the basics of how this came upon you. It is a burden no one would ask for.

To that extent, empathy for the business owners who coerce employees and customers is appropriate. But the reprecussions of going along with these unjust mandates go much farther than that.

This is an attack on CANADA. It is not an invasion from outside but an infiltration from within. Those you'd trust the most are the most burdened to rush headlong into implementation of restrictive measures.

TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY, PATRIOTS.

>>11816507

God bless you, Patriot.

The NYC's Rob Ford

https://youtu.be/yqt5X0iDiyA

This guy reminded me of Rob FORD in his best days. Very sad to think that his brother, Doug FORD would be the arch enemy of the late Rob FORD.

Watch this man speak from his heart and how he has used his brains to live by the motto – there are two things you can do - you can do nothing, or you can do something.

God bless Canadian Patriots.

>>11764454

None of this accounts for the failure of either Nature-Medicine or the IHME modelers to recognize and correct the error. Moreover, neither the IHME modelers nor Dr. Murray provide any evidence that masks work. They assume masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of the coronavirus, and then claim that the model is correct for that reason. This sort of circular reasoning is all-too typical of those who so vociferously insist that masks are effective without going to the trouble of substantiating that contention – or differentiating what is likely a modest benefit from mask-wearing in specific indoor locations and around high-risk individuals from the media-driven tendency to depict masks as a silver bullet for stopping the virus in all circumstances.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/strangely-unscientific-masking-america

continued

To conclude on the basis of low death rates in several countries that masks prevent coronavirus transmission is patently absurd, illogical, and unscientific. A casual observer might also note that coronavirus cases (albeit not necessarily deaths) are rising in many parts of the world, regardless of mask mandates or rates of implementation. While not a controlled experiment, this fact at least ought to be addressed when making such sweeping claims.

Ultimately, I do not have the credentials to determine whether or not –or to what extent — masks work. But it is obvious that the issue has become so politicized that mainstream media outlets, politicians, and even scientists seize upon the slightest bit of favorable evidence, dismiss out of hand anything that conflicts with their theory, and most egregiously of all misrepresent the data, to support the conclusion that masks worn by asymptomatic people prevent coronavirus transmission.

And masks are only one part of this story: school closures, lockdowns, and social distancing all have been dogmatically embraced as a means of controlling infection. The substantial evidence that these mechanisms are not effective, particularly beyond their duration, has been automatically rejected for too long. This is not science: it is politics, and those within the profession who have refused to examine their confirmation biases, or manipulated the evidence to score political points, are utterly unqualified for the job.

…

ANONS, read the article with care. NOTE the quasi-religous aspects of the pro-mask pronouncements.

• this is not science: it is politics

• restrictions have been dogmatically embraced

• substantial evidence that these mechanisms are not effective has been automatically rejected

• manipulation of evidence to score political points disqualifies 'scientists' who make dogmatic assertions to bolster political sentiment of fear

Anons, compare the lack of reporting, referencing, to the following study – compare how the spin on this reporting, where it occurs, turns science into mush.

DANISH STUDY OF MASS MASK WEARING

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

Anons, in other words, the science does not support mask mandates. Next look for evidence of the harm done to so much mask wearing by individual and then look for evidence of the harm of the fear mongering that children and others are subjected to by these mandates – even by widespread practice of unmandated mask wearing. Look for the evidence and be objective.

Ask how to assess the efficacy of mass mask wearing. ASK how to judge and then see how easy it is to pre-judge and make dogmatic assumptions the basis for compelled political expression of political sentiment. Note the religious-like moralizing and posturing that is far removed from actual evidence and sound reasoning.

The point is not to discount religious beliefs but to note that coercing people to perform rituals based on a superstitious belief - not that most major religions are simply superstituous belief systems, not saying that - is outside the lawful order of our society. We can not force all women to wear veils, right? We can not lawfully force all men to wear beards, right? We can not force all people to use HOLY water at entrances - or at all - right? We can not coerce all people to carry lucky charms, right?

You have freedom of religion and conscience liberty. These belong to YOU and neither this freedom nor YOU is owned by GOVERNMENT.

The people have a government, not the other way around.

>>11851642

Proceed with caution. That newspaper, GLOBE & MAIL, is establishment and was relentlessly against the now-deceased ROB FORD, former populist mayer of Toronto. Note the article was published 2013.

The MSM in Toronto PROMOTES DEEP STATE PROPAGANDA.

Will say that his borther, current mayor of TORONTO, Doug Ford has taken some authoritarian turns in his governing of the province of ONTARIO since the RONA became a big story. The other parties in opposition - LIBERAL and NEW DEMOCRAT - are social-leaning if not outright socialist. They propose going to even more restrictive measures and extending the supposed emergency.

So please read the material dropped, yes, but also proceed with caution and skepticism. The DEEP STATE seeks to own any who come into power through means nother than through THEM. Look to how party leaders are selected within each party. Provincial parties are supposedly independent of national parties.

Compare the relatively new national party, CONSERVATIVE, versus the old established PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE party of the province of ONTARIO. Different parties. While it is possible that the national party has been compromised, it began as a grassroot REFORM party in WESTERN CANADA and was definitely outside the establishment. It became so popular that it was able to form a national party through absorption of smaller eastern CANADA fragments of other parties, including, prominently, a runt PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE faction in ATLANTIC Canadian provinces. The Ontario wing of the national party is associated but is differentiated from the provincial PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE organization. Please keep this in mind and let it temper your consumption of establishment press stories about ROB FORD AND DOUG FORD.

Not dismissing the info. Not claiming it is entirely falsified. Just advising skepticims and caution. Anons are prolly already of that inclination anyway. New eyes need to follow gud examples of thinking for themselves.

>>11752916