Thank you. This is an excellent explanation regarding WEF and conspiracy issues -- or as a convenient cover for them! [/Joke]
I would add a few items that lead to some of the conspiracy issues on both sides. On the observable information side, I would also add a few items:
1) Ngaire Woods, founding dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, at The Great Narrative: A call to action, streamed live on Friday the 12th of November 2021. English subtitles, saying the following:
“The good news is the elites across the world trust each other more and more, so we can come together and design and do beautiful things together. The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So, we can lead, but if people aren’t following, we’re not going to get to where we want to go.”
2. When asked about in Parliament, a question about Klaus Schwab and this "cabinet infiltration" was ignored, labelled a "conspiracy theory", and then dismissed without being addressed.
3. UN airplanes at North Bay airport on Feb 20, including one that looks intentionally blacked out. This is a few hours from Ottawa, at the same time as the mass police action in Ottawa. There appears to be no public information on why they are there. If it is related to the Ottawa protests, why would multiple UN planes be there for a Canadian protest? Is it UN police brought in to help? What are the implications and legalities of foreign personnel used in policing Canadian protestors and why would the UN support this?
4. The use of the Emergencies Act as the first engagement step of the government, with no effort to even discuss issues with the protesters, no existing plan as far as when mandates will end, and no discussion about planning for a plan. No engagement with the issues at all, implying that the issue is not about science or safety as is being used in other jurisdictions, or WHO and other orgs being against vaccine mandates and passports: (https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking).
Combined with the divisive rhetoric, the wrong group of people by vaccination status instead of risk status, and the obsessive single-mindedness about vaccination as the only thing that matters, the implication is the mandates are not about a scientific plan, public health, bioethics, but some other purpose. It appears to be more of politically divisive purposes rather than some global "compliance to authority", but it can fit the latter hypothesis too.
5. The tracking functions of the digital passports, tracking locations of millions of Canadians, and as noted by the protest spokesman, Ben Dichter, the government is tracking which citizens are approaching the border and can to the same with any location in Canada to keep track of who is where. That is fairly dystopian monitoring of the citizens.
These are all indicative of large issues with respect to transparency, engagement, and information availability to the public. The evidence fits multiple hypotheses; it can fit the narrative in this article or it can fit the "global cabal" narrative.
Simply ignoring the questions (#2) and calling it a conspiracy theory just furthers the conspiracy theory. An answer similar to the article here at The Line would have been much better. There's no explanation; just dismissal. That's a problem.
As suggested here in the article, the secrecy is a problem. People in positions of power, wealth, and influence meeting behind closed doors while talking about trusting each other and working together, and with poor relationships to "the people", implies an ingroup of global "elites" who think of themselves as elites and a ruling class, at odds with the people they "rule over". There's a atmosphere of self-importance, entitlement to rule, and dismissal of their "lessers".
The idea of global "elites" meeting at such organizations in general seems like a very bad idea. The same sort of conspiracies grew out of the Bilderberg meetings as well. If conferences like this are going to happen, they should either exclude politicians or should be a lot more transparent.
I know some of these overlap with the article here, but one that I think needs significant highlighting is, "Those who would mainstream conspiracy theories with newspaper columns or statements in the House of Commons need to do better."
Indeed. On the political side, the PM himself and the House of Commons and Senate debates were quite good examples of this, suggesting the protests were extremists, foreign-funded, racists, misogynists, anti-vax, violent, desecrated the War Memorial (didn't happen), defaced the Terry Fox status (a Canadian flag and a sign saying "Freedom"), and all sorts of insults and conspiracy theories.
The press has been similar to worse. Even The Line here, which claims to reject "bullshit", has published multiple articles claiming that the protest was anti-vax and that the organizers wanted to overthrow the government and insert themselves into it. They confused the Freedom Convoy 2022 with the group, Canada Unity, which had a convoy to Ottawa in Oct 2016 and delivered an MOU to the Senate on Dec 10. Freedom Convoy 2022 started by completely different people in mid-January with a completely different approach. Canada Unity then pivoted their approach to match it and some of them volunteered to help: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/protesting-the-pretext-of-the-protests
The Line has also tried to portray the protests as having a "dark side" and that, while there were "some" people who thought it was all a peaceful protest effort, that in reality there was something else afoot. Except, its stated objectives and approach from the start were peaceful and only about the mandates and passports and that never changed. If there was a dark side in Ottawa, they stayed quiet for 3 weeks, hid themselves well, did nothing, even when the police started beating and assaulting protestors they still did nothing. No guns, no bombs, no fires, no gangs ... nothing. It was entirely consistent with its founding intentions stated publicly many times.
But, will we see the press .-- including independent outlets like The Line -- apologize for their conspiracy theories and getting it wrong? I doubt it, but one can hope.
Politicians and the press have a much greater responsibility because information is their job and people listen to them. People en masse do not listen to me or other commenters on the internet.
Compare the level of bullying and harm. The author here had to deal with some guy seeming threatening in a bar. Sounds quite unfortunate and a little scary. Mainstream press from places like CNN, CBC, and CTV had to deal with boos and hisses, people yelling at them to go away. Indeed, tough.
Now compare that "bullying" to all of the broken families split based on press and politician lies about the protests, or about the risks of unvaccinated people before that. All of the people with lost jobs. Those arrested, banks accounts seized, vehicles seized, lives ruined.
Politicians and the press seem to complain about how hard they have it for having to deal with intimidation, sometimes based on conspiracy theories and sometimes based on bad things that they actually do. That seems completely oblivious to the mass suffering that they, themselves, cause on the populations.
Politicians are supposed to represent the people. They are supposed to listen, engage, and address concerns. They are servants of the public, not critics of the public. The Press are supposed to hold politicians to account, not take ideological sides and not attack the citizens. Neither are supposed to lie, and both have immense responsibility to check their facts, correct their mistakes, and apologize when they get it wrong. Otherwise, many people can get hurt. And they have.
When we have a political class and press that do their jobs properly and with integrity, the population behaves well. We are very far from that place right now. I personally ask that both politicians and the press do some internal evaluation; Are you aiming to tell the truth or just "win"? Are you aiming to inform or to promote a narrative? Have you checked your facts or are you just accepting what you are told?
This is your job. It is not our job; we don't get paid to perform these functions. We get nothing out of writing these comments. My goal is only to correct the mistakes and to fact check the claims of the press and politicians because I care about the state of our society. I don't care about "winning", I care about integrity and honesty. Can you please do the same.
Again, thank you for this article. It is good, but I fear the people who need to hear it won't listen.
Amen to that. If they do not want people repeating Conspiracy theories I suggest they them selves stop creating an atmosphere we’re they can come alive. I have much more to add and I shall do so too. But you nailed it. Let’s not forget the big tech companies playing with the little people and the paid fact checkers as well. There are far more reasons to believe in a conspiracy, if they are happening right in front of you, and collaboration between government, media and big tech companies is all leaning to silence decent, then what do you call it Michelle? Coincidence?
Well said. I hadn't even thought about censorship in this context, but you are right.
When the public sees open and free discussion and debates of people acting in good faith -- but disagreeing -- we can see what is real. We can see that almost all of the freely-speaking experts agree and the few that don't are wackos, so that we know the state of knowledge is pretty solid. Or we can see that the experts disagree and infer that knowledge of the topic is in a state of real uncertainty. Free and open discussion provides a scale to measure by.
When politicians, press, and big tech censor people claiming "misinformation", we can no longer trust what we're told. We no longer have a workable measuring scale because we can see the thumb on it. They have obvious incentive to control the narrative in their own favour. Or, more simply,
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
This is the best comment I have ever read. Well researched, factual and very insightful. Better than the article. Thank you so much. I was wondering if you would consider either running for the PM job or perhaps overseeing the media regulations and not allowing political funding for news media. Can't trust a word of it anymore. And finally, as unpopular as it is to say, I was very proud to be a Canadian for the first time in years because of the Freedom Convoy. And they did a fantastic job of remaining peaceful. They exposed our political system for what is really is...an elite self serving bunch of hypocrites. Thank you again.
I think the "running for PM" question always comes with problems. I think most non-politicians who think about that think in terms of "If I was running things ...". Sure, in that case I think I could do a much better job as could a heck of a lot of people.
But, the reality is that nobody runs for PM exactly, nor does the PM "run" things. You have to be elected by the party to lead the party, which includes being both popular with the public and the party membership. That includes putting forward policies you don't necessarily agree with and some you may detest. If it's a minority government, it means even more of that with a second party.
Then, of course, if you are doing things against the current media goals they will be constantly attacking you. Or, if you fall in line with them, they will protect you.
You can be a great private leader, a great manager, make good decisions through good processes of collecting differing opinions and input, but that won't really help much in politics. I wish it were about hiring a good management team. Unfortunately it's more about branding, promotion, competition, and spin. I don't know if it is possible for honesty and integrity to win and lead because that's not what the press and other politicians are looking for.
Can you imagine a PM or any politician saying that the opposition make a good point that they hadn't considered, that they'd made a mistake, and would change their policies and plans based on the input of the opposition? Yet, that is what is required if such a thing truly happens.
As to the convoy, I am truly saddened that politicians and press missed the amazing opportunity for which participants felt proud to be Canadian and united with people of other provinces and political stripes. It's a lost opportunity. I too felt patriotic and hopeful, quashed by the PM evoking hatred and fear and police-state tactics. Sadly, unless things change, there is no necessity to hold another election for years and by then this whole thing will have been forgotten.
Thank you again. Such a thoughtful reply. It's true isn't it? Real integrity would be to acknowledge an opposition"s point as having merit and perhaps encourage collaboration within the government. There is a bit of that at the provincial level in PEI. I feel really sad these last few weeks watching the convoy, then Ukraine. I guess politics really is a game where the real losers are the people. I recently heard Jordan Peterson respond to the question of has he ever considered going into politics. He answered "yes but I realized I just don't have the stomach for it". I understand what he means. Was good to read your message.
Ben Dichter crosses the border and is waved thru because they already have him on file....as they have millions of others in their database from license plates. Obviously, Ben was vaxxed because he did the Tucker show and then came back. He only had to show it once before. He did a 2nd gig with Tucker towards the end of the occupation. There's not a great big scary database in the QR passport...oh, but there is in your phone. You can be followed anywhere as you are hooked up to a global database for all intents.
There was little peace at the Ottawa occupation. Disgusting people fouled the streets for blocks around for 3 weeks. And we all know the rest. Whom should a PM talk to about the overthrow of his government? 2016 would have been the first time the MOU popped up. The next time was 2019. Pat King's convoy to Ottawa only drove around for a couple of days then left. Oil and gas was that protest and kicking the PM out was still the game plan. So they roll the same MOU in 2022. The occupiers were warned, to leave or get fined, arrested, charged and lose their bank accounts. Also, please take your children home.
I don't want to respond to the rest of your tinfoil hat concerns. You do have some airy-fairy ideas about people though. I suggest some internal evaluation. When you fact check, don't get your info from YouTube, FB, Twitter, and the like.
"You watch too much YouTube." I laughed. I actually spent the last 6 months intentionally not watching Youtube. I gave up on corporate media 15 years ago, tried Twitter circa 2014-15 and gave up as it is a terrible social experiment that brings out the worst in people, ditched Facebook circa 2015.
We are in a hyper-partisan, hyper-tribalist time. Anybody who understands ingroup/outgroup psychology recognized the problems coming and now we're living it out, with partisan censorship and political weaponization of everything from where you shop to what books you read. Purity tests are everywhere, and merely wanting to listen to what "they" say makes you a "traitor". Social media is rapidly and openly censoring based on dissenting views -- at least if popular enough people say it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear that I don't, and never did, believe the WEF/Schwab theories. I am merely citing more reasons why people are believing it. To keep up with news I tend to read. I use Ground.News as the basis for checking biases, listen to a wide range of podcasts across the political spectrum, and read Substack articles including The Line. I try to get a wide variety of inputs.
(On that note, with respect to the WEF conspiracy beliefs, this is not just some fringe thing, and not just some right-wing belief. The Hill's Rising promotes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1_8-jLQkI. Kim is a self-described Liberal. Ryan Grim is hard-left having written for HuffPo and the Intercept, and Robbie Sauve is left-libertarian writing for the Daily Beast and Reason.)
What I do is fact check everybody. Nowadays almost all common sources are biased and driven by tribal narratives, so if somebody claims something in a news article or video I search either their cited sources or, if not cited (all too often), I search for original unedited video or read the source documents.
Your statement appears to be an attempt to just dismiss. Instead of addressing this issues, you attack the person. I could do the same by saying you watch too much corporate media because you clearly believe narratives that are pushed on you and never fact check them yourself.
Also, you didn't listen to Ben Dichter. He has said multiple times that the border guard said, when asked why the agent didn't need to see his QR code, that "Oh, your phone already popped up on my screen and is correlated with your passport."
Now, if you want to claim that he's wrong or lying, and these news sources are full of baloney, go right ahead. I don't know that they are right either, but they seem to be reporting the same thing across the political spectrum and with multiple confirmations across time and sources. Please investigate further and report back if you find that it isn't true.
"There was little peace at the Ottawa occupation. "
There's 100s of hours of livestreaming of it. Ottawalks, Zot, Zoke, Viva Frei, Travel Fun 69, and so on. Please look through it and find the violence. I watched many hours life. I visited it. I would describe it as a love-in of people hugging and coming together in unity across the political and geographic spectrum, from hippies to working class to grandmothers all singing O Canada and uniting around wanting liberal freedoms back and the end to demonizing, tracking, and hurting their fellow Canadians.
Or, we can take the Ottawa police's official statements on the matter:
"I think in the climate we now live in in 2022 there's a fair degree of polarization. I can tell you that, while people have made comments that they do not feel safe downtown, we have officers who are on scene 24/7. I've personally spoken to many of those officers who have said, consistently the same message, that this is one of the most reasonable and most welcoming group of protestors they've ever encountered. That is from front-line, uniformed officers standing on the memorial up to and including senior officers who have been in negotiation with the leaders."
You are free to disagree, but please provide links to the video or other evidence you cite.
'Disgusting people fouled the streets for blocks around for 3 weeks. "
Such as? In the livestreams you clearly see them picking up all garbage, shoveling the snow, cleaning the sidewalks. Local downtown residents interviewed in some of the videos say they've never seen the place so clean and never felt so safe walking through the downtown at night. If you have counter-evidence, go for it.
"And we all know the rest. "
No, I don't think we do. I don't even know what you mean by that. What is "the rest"?
"Whom should a PM talk to about the overthrow of his government?"
What overthrow of his government? They never had any demand related to overthrowing the government. Since the start their demands were just to end the vaccine mandates and the vaccine passport, and their approach was always peaceful protest.
Notably, "We are going to roll across Canada. They are going to go to Parliament Hill, sit there and protest -- peacefully, of course -- until these mandates are lifted."
And, "The major issue, of course, is the mandate that just came down on Saturday regarding them being required to have their vaccination passports in order to cross the border."
And (from Marc), "So these are drivers who are vaccinated, unvaccinated ... they just feel that the government has no business forcing people to get the shots. Is that right." to which she replied, "That why we named it the Freedom Convoy. It's not the convoy for the unvaccinated, it's the convoy for freedoms for everybody."
And, "This is bringing people together from all walks of life, all races, all religions, and it is really heartwarming to see the Canada spirit is alive and well.", followed by noting that she is herself indigenous. (And supporters in from Sikhs to Hutterites: https://twitter.com/JimMurp77852985/status/1486707031591591940/photo/1)
They've repeated the same, and explicitly denied the external claims that they want to overthrow government, e.g., in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4KEK7lrNE
@20:25: (Interviewer) "Jagmeet Singh, and then the other members of the media, have said that the convoy's stated objective is to overthrow the government. ... Has Freedom Convoy 2022 ... have they ever said anything like that, similar to that, or something that could be misconstrued as that?"
(Dichter) "No, not even close. That's what elections are for. We're here for mandates and passports. We have a minority government. At some point there's going to be an election and the parties will deal with that. But we have no interest in subverting democracy in any way, shape, or form. This is just about getting our freedoms back and getting rid of this tracking app. That's all."
If you have information that negates all of this, please cite it.
That MOU had nothing to do with this protest. That there were some people from Canada Unity or prior efforts who supported or joined in with this protest is obviously going to happen. But then you are just creating some sort of purity test and guilt by association. If somebody at your work, or the party you support, or some cause you support, is convicted of some serious crime, does that mean your workplace, party, or cause are now nullified because of some "virus" from another supporter turning out to be a bad person?
All movements, groups, and efforts have some people who will have some offensive view or some prior activity that looks bad. That doesn't have anything to do with the movement itself. This protest had nothing to do with an MOU or interest in overthrowing a government, and Pat King did not start it or define it. He did support it and participated in it though. (Also, the MOU from Canada Unity in December 2021 was not about overthrowing government, but an inept attempt at some sort of joint oversight committee, with failed delivery on video. It was an inept and ineffectual effort that was completely harmless and went nowhere.)
"The occupiers were warned, to leave or get fined, arrested, charged"
The protesters were indeed fined with plenty of tickets, with a team of lawyers dealing with those, and warned of arrest. As are protesters all the time. Former Green Party leader Elizabeth May was arrested at an anit-pipeline protest while she was leader, along with NDP MP Kennedy Stewart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrjSCLt0Ny8
That's to be expected in protest movements.
"I don't want to respond to the rest of your tinfoil hat concerns."
Again, just said to be dismissive. Which "concern" was specifically "tinfoil hat". Again, if I wasn't clear, and could be my fault, at no time have I believed the Schwab conspiracy. Yes, the WEF clearly has the Great Reset paper, agenda, and Schwab's book, but as the article here points out, it isn't like anybody who goes to the WEF or gets some designated award is suddenly brainwashed and suddenly start acting it out.
"You do have some airy-fairy ideas about people though."
OK, name one. I have education that includes much study of psychology. Maybe I'm wrong about something specific, but I can't know what it is if you don't point out the specific mistake or point me to corrections. Without it, it just looks like you disagree but recognize you have no basis for that belief. You can't convince people of things by calling them names or insulting them. That doesn't work. I recognize that as just venting frustration and perhaps a little cognitive dissonance between available evidence and your own personal beliefs. I could be wrong about that, but that's what it appears like to me.
"I suggest some internal evaluation."
All the time. Every day I evaluate myself. I check sources for everything. I double-check my thinking and if perhaps I've fallen into some cognitive bias. I seek out dissenting views and differing presentations of the same topics, such as at Ground.News. I recommend it for everybody, though it can be hard work sometimes.
"When you fact check, don't get your info from YouTube, FB, Twitter, and the like."
Where are the good places you recommend to get "facts" from? Does the fact a live, unedited video is on Youtube suddenly negate the content of the video? Can you justify that position? Attacking the platform on which the source material is located is just a different version of an ad hominem (attack the person) instead of addressing the argument.
As I've stated above, I don't even watch Youtube, haven't used FB in ~7 years, and haven't been on Twitter (except to tracking down information from the source that happens to be on Twitter) for ~7 years. If you mean to not believe a person's opinion, editing, or presentation of material on these site -- I don't take those as truth. Same with corporate media and politicians. There is no person whose claims are not above checking on any source, from anywhere. Whether it is Youtube or CBC, you shouldn't just believe what you are told -- if that belief matters.
I'm all for you citing and providing differing evidence. Please do.
You post close to 20 links and suggested several more that I should look through. Do you really expect me to spend hours going through each one and then reply? Just so you know for future reference I may be tempted to check out a link or two if that, but better to keep things a bit more succinct. You and others may have time on their hands to do so but I don't. Good luck.
Bravo. I love it. I try, but my expression of things is not nearly as forthcoming. I really like Viva Frei', and Winston his Westie, as I have one too. Thanks for that tip. I will check out the others you mentioned as well. Informative as always.
I would digress to your level of condemnation but that tinfoil hat that I have on deflects your rude and derogatory remarks. The truth by the Corporate media, to which I suggest you get your information from, is government funded and paid to tell you a storyline that reflects the narrative they want you to believe is truth. I have difficulty in accepting any story that is one sided, when ,as part of the human race, we know that there is always two sides to any story. I would suggest you never tried to engage with anyone from the convoy as your story is convoluted with the same narrative expressed by the corporate news. As for YouTube, might I suggest you engage in it to get the other side of a story, and then, as difficult as it is for some people, you can come to your own conclusion. On YouTube (if you actually watched what I posted) is an interview of George Soro's by Christia Freeland. Of course its all misinformation and not truth and should be banned as you say. Its why this world will cease to be a free and democratic one because those being fed the misinformation denigrate those trying to give you a different perspective or both sides of a story. I am not prone to biased ideology such as those spouting a story they deem truth without even looking at both sides and the facts surrounding it. Its why we came up with the name" sheep." There are plenty of those who digest everything they are fed as truth without checking the facts first. Far too many to be completely honest and that is the sad part of the entire situation we face today.
Please do tell, if the corporate media is not to trust who is? I prefer print over video. Where do you get your info from? Is Covid just a big gov plot to sway people in behaving one way or another?
Oh, I have "engaged" as you put it with a couple that drove into Ottawa a few weeks ago. Why the preoccupation with Soros and Schwab and who they know. Even an hour-long discussion would never begin to cover everything these people could discuss. I'm guessing your YouTube video is less than 5 mins?
Did I say something should be banned or are you putting words in my mouth?
A couple of things. Please expand your understanding of what a democracy is and isn't. And did you really come up with the derogatory term, "sheep"? Wow, I'm impressed.
The convoy was an exercise of another point of view. But the delivery was offensive. Most could not articulate what they desperately thought was important. Simply screaming freedom is just not good enough. My personal favourite was a guy looking at the camera/phone telling us, "we are doing it for you". But he couldn't say just what that was.
Did you ever stop to think that the reason you are so positive that "corporate" media is lying to you is that you disagree strongly so therefore they must be wrong, bad, evil, whatever word you prefer?
Anyway, don't worry your little head about it. Give it a couple of more weeks and it will be totally forgotten. Little pop-up news items when those incarcerated go to court, but that's all they wrote.
The actions were not illegal. They'll all get over it, other than the few who are being charged with criminal offenses. Truly, the convoy is going to go the way of the last convoy; only people who were directly impacted will remember. For some it's good times, for more it's like a bad smell. I am not a misogynist. Why do you call people names? Have you been following what is happening elsewhere?
1-If you don't want to be name called I would suggest you stop telling people to not worry their little head over important issues. It is condescending. Its the same as name calling so if you sink to that level its most likely others will follow.
2-Have you stopped to think about the reason for The Line in the first place? Hence what is your definition of reputable? The reason the convoy disallowed the mainstream media into any press conferences was because of their biased reporting that most people are very aware of. First and foremost the reason the Line was introduced was to combat that. We all have a bias but its when we allow that bias to tint everything in one way we no longer deal in facts but in views. That is what journalism to day. The way they see it instead of just the facts. What they disagree with gets tainted with their brush. In other words its not objective.
3. These actions went against the right for Canadian's to protest, whether you like what the protest is about is not. Every protest has its rabble rousers and those with darker intent. Every protest. The Government can not pick and chose who is allowed to protest, where, and for what reasons, as that defeats the entire Charter. All Canadians have the right to protest and to be treated equally by the law. Period.
4. As a person who donated and backed the convoy I am insulted by your lack of compassion, your reasoning that has been produced by those news media that deemed it a bad smell as well.
You had no idea except what the media told you about either protest that came to Ottawa. There was no jury involved in the first protest so hopefully this goes before the courts so Canadians from both sides can see the facts, not hyperbole, political bias, or the Corporate media's views. Just the facts. So lets leave this here and both await the outcome of the trials. I don't care if they debate this in parliament as that is just more of the same. What I want are facts and reasoning not bias and partisanship. I am as biased as the next person as I believed in the cause. I believed in the actions of those in Ottawa. I did not believe in blockades. It goes against my rule of law ideals but you can not punish some unless you are willing to punish others for the same actions. That goes for all protests regardless of what they are about. We are all equal under the law. Period.
It would be nice if MP's acted like our representatives in Ottawa as opposed to Ottawa's representative in our ridings. Then people might feel like their MP was working for them, not for the government, or PMO.
I don't expect my MP to be someone I can control with a button on my computer. I expect her to make good judgements that are in the best interests of the country. To believe that they should only be our avatars in Ottawa (and only vote as their constituents tell them to) is to misunderstand what representative democracy is about.
My understanding of representative democracy is that individuals voted in by the people (demos, democracy, democratic) will sit in parliament as our representatives. They may not be how it actually works, but that's how I understand it should work. A little something I picked up many years ago during my political science degree. When Jody Wilson Raybould showed good judgement (literally), by following the law, she was booted from caucus. Jane Philpott showed good judgement in siding with her and was treated likewise. Nathaniel Erskine Smith and Charlie Angus showed good judgement (in keeping with every constitutional and legal scholar I have read so far) in vocally opposing the implementation of the emergencies act, but subsequently voted along party lines. Anthony Rota showed good judgement by insisting that PHAC and the Trudeau government obey the will of Parliament, and he ended up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. So I don't see a whole lot of good judgement being used during parliamentary votes. As for MP's being controlled by a push of a button, that seems to be the sole privilege of the party leaders.
Your comment corroborates what I wrote: "I don't expect my MP to be someone I can control with a button on my computer. I expect her to make good judgements that are in the best interests of the country."
Jody Wilson-Raybould was exactly the sort of representative that any sensible person would want--someone who, in the clutch will vote h-e-r own conscience (not mine or that of the political controllers in Canada's main political parties). We must acknowledge, though, that she also "toed the line" (as others must also do).
Having said that, you likely know, as a political science major, that we've had vigorous debate in Canada about how party discipline is imposed by those parties.
Some sensible people (including David Kilgour and analysts who have written on the topic for Policy Options) suggest that party discipline stifles democracy and have advocated for a approach that does not depend on "whipping the vote".
Others suggest that without party discipline it would be more difficult to hold the governing party to account; they also note that lobbyists would have a field day because they would exploit the removal of all party discipline by putting enormous pressure on individual parliamentarians.
I would agree that our parties need to be less stifling (and thus more welcoming of diverse opinions within their ranks). Relegating political staffers to a subordinate role would go some way to dealing with this issue.
But to do away with it altogether? I don't think so.
c.f.: Ekaterina Stepanova, Party discipline does not hinder good governance: Allowing free votes in the House of Commons is not a good idea for reform, Canadian Study of Parliament Group essay, University of Western Ontario, 2005, https://cspg-gcep.ca/pdf/Winning_Essay_E_Stepanova_2005-e.pdf
Michele, you cannot possibly be so naïve as to think that when a group of undeniable elites from both government and business enabled the richest in the world to dramatically increase their wealth from government largess during a worldwide pandemic that there is no link. Maybe there is no conspiracy but only coincidence -- in the same way that there was never any "old boy" conspiracy or glass ceiling or racial bias.
I don’t think the author is doing it intentionally - but this article is just more elite gaslighting. We all understand that the WEF isn’t sending instructions to Justin Trudeau. On the other hand the author seems to be trying to make us believe that the WEF isn’t influential - while showing how influential they are. There is a video circulating from the Canadian Bankers Association pitching a digital ID for all Canadians. The video explicitly discusses how this is supported by the WEF. Banks in Canada are enormously influential - and apparently they really care what the WEF thinks. The idea of a digital ID is creepy and authoritarian. It is linked to one of the proposals from the Trudeau government that we should never be anonymous on the internet- that we are always linked to our online ID. Which of course is linked to the very real Covid pass we have all been forced to carry around. The reason Trudeau, big banks, and their enablers in the media would like this became pretty clear last week. It will make crushing dissent much more efficient. By seizing peoples ability to function financially- by doxxing ridiculing and attacking them - all outside normal judicial channels. So call me a conspiracy theorist. Trudeau showed us how brutal a Canadian government can get - and how compliant the media and big corporations are when that happens. All of this appears to be WEF approved.
The concerns with the WEF playbook are global. I appreciate your well thought out submission and hope your downplaying of your WEF involvement is true. It is reported that both Freelund & Carney are WEF board members - if this is true this implies their involvement is based more on ideology - not just an opportunity to hobnob with the global elites.
Yes, lets hope the goals of "The Great Reset" are just pie in the sky and the long list of global politicians & elites who are attached to this movement are in fact just a glorified group of busy bodies with nothing better to do. Only time will tell.
It is very sad that extreme behavior towards our politicians & influencers both on the web and in person is occurring, but it cannot be a surprise as the increasing level of divisive speech steers people to the extremes.
Better yet why not boycott the WEF altogether? If it’s merely for the elite how does that bear well for society in general? It smacks of old time mens club in the Victorian era, and only worsens the class divide in Canada and other nations.
Just move along folks...nothing to see here. It's all a big nothingburger. Don't bother your little heads about foreign ideological influences or lobby money...the government will take good care of you and do what's right for Canada. You just have to trust us.
There are also many facts, and to some they matter. For instance, the fact that Christia Freeland (aka protégé writer of the biography of George Soro's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdUaEE7mr2w ) is a sitting member on the WEF Board of Trusties, as was Marc Carney, Mr. Fink (Blackrock Investments https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/blackrock-inc/ ) all who are in positions of either Governmental or financial influence in Canada. If one is to look on the WEF site there are many of the Business Partners with the WEF who are extremely large and influential in Big Pharma names such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Big technology we all know who they are, biochemistry and financial Investment Companies and Banks.
When one considers how BlackRock has become so influential in the investment world as it takes in Government(taxpayers) money from countries around the world to invest in globalist agendas makes conspiracies difficult to explain away. Perhaps its just plain collusion by these big financiers and globalist Governments, you pick.
The Liberal Party was voted in with the promise of transparency and accountability to the people. They are the most secretive and corrosive Government I have seen in my life time. They audit nothing, as they do not supply auditors with enough money to audit anything. There is zero accountability and denigration of those who dare ask for it. Everything is a secret that must be kept from our Parliament and the elected officials of the people they are suppose to be serving. The stunts and actions of the Liberals leaves anyone who has any suspicions of foul play a gambit of reasons to consider anything is possible. Conspiracy or not. If one looks at the facts, one has to assume something is going on and it obvious there is collusion between financial institutions and Government. Collusion between main stream media and Government. That is called fascism Michelle.
The silencing of decent, the constant gaslighting of the people, and turning into authoritarian regime when someone dares stand up to the group think and constant power grab, the media and Liberal/NDP coalition government attack them like hungry wolves. Conspiracy theory is what globalists use to denigrate people as being uneducated and leaning off the edge. Its to downplay the whole idea they could possibly be doing something nefarious. They are hiding much and by doing so they create the atmosphere for conspiracy, or its collusion again, you pick.
No Government does what this government has to keep things from the public. So you can call it what ever you like Michell but for now their actions have been secret and lately just plain evil. Remember if you say anything loud and long enough people will believe it, if not just to shut you up.
There has been partisanship on all sides, but we do not live in an authoritarian regime.
If I may say, your resort to epithets such as "globalist" is not actually an invitation to discussion and debate. For the record, the term was invented by Stephen Bannon and his Breitbart Network precisely to megaphone an anti-globalization, anti-establishment message.
Hysterical hyperbole. Instead of invoking the language of the extremist, why don't you explain to the rest of us how the short-term invocation of a piece of legislation that was introduced in the 1980s and forbids the suspension of Charter rights can constitute "over reach"?
There are very specific demands made of any government that chooses to invoke the Emergencies Act. There are also stipulations in place requiring a parliamentary review. What's more, in Canada people who object to any government action can choose to challenge such actions in the Canadian court system.
How you can claim that we live in an "authoritarian state" in light of all that (and laws guaranteeing the existence of independent news media agencies)?
I would suggest you do some research on the nonsense you just wrote while calling me hyperbole and hysterical. First, Trudeau and his government along with the equally dystopian Jag meet are being challenged because they did not meet the requirements. Not even close. Second, if their actions forbid the suspension of charter rights, how would you account for freezing bank accounts, taking property, arresting people with no due process. Sir if that is not breaking your charter of rights and freedoms, I am afraid your unaware of what is in the charter. Second they were deemed terrorists! They have even black listed those farmers who donated or participated from getting loans from the Federal Farmers Bank ! So excuse me for being somewhat hyperbole but your so uninformed and completely in the illiberal mindset that your cant tell fact from fiction. Arrested, charged and jailed with no due process, no bail for some, and their bank accounts frozen. How are they to get money to pay for bail? They had their property seized. Insurance revoked, as well as mortgages and loans possibly revoked. How does that not walk all over the Charter of rights and freedoms. That happened to people who happened to donate because they backed the cause. Some of the police in Ottawa also donated as did business. Of course the Liberals and Jag meet were out of bounds and completely out of their minds. FINTRAC said there was no nefarious or suspicious transactions on any of the funding sites as it was just people donating to their cause. They made up stories and the news media ran with them and they demonized these protesters, named called them, and then sent in a police riot teams to beat, trample, and illegally, remove them. They were not doing anything illegal except parking. Which they were getting ticketed for! They even had an injunction put against them for horn honking so they quit honking. They moved trucks out of residential neighborhood to aid the police and mayor when they asked. They were peaceful and were doing nothing illegal. Not even one broken window, no damage to any property, and the crime in the downtown area dropped because they were there. The mayor was a friend of Trudeau from SNC Lavalin and so he was playing politics instead of dealing with things properly. All Trudeau had to do was send a representative to speak to the truckers and that would have deescalated it right there. But they did not do anything to de-escalate it and instead tried to rile them by berating and name calling these protester. They were not blocking any boarders as they had already been disbursed. Even when the trained monkeys were sent in with batons and horses to beat on them they did not retaliate as that is the whole intention of beating people, is to anger them so they retaliate. Did not infringe on their charter rights! There is three law suits against this government. Then I hope they go after the funding site, the person that leaked the names, the mainstream media as well. Now excuse me but when has this ever been used for any protest in Canada. When twenty men attacked workers with axes and started fire to the truck the men were in, not to mention destroy millions of dollars worth of equipment along with harm the police and keep them from getting to the site. Did you see any emergency act go in! This was happening while the police were beating peaceful protesters! The thugs at the Coastal Gas pipeline were barely mentioned while your Corporate media denigrated these peaceful protesters who had not harmed a soul. There was a man continually walking around live streaming the protest every day and there was not one thing that was illegal. That's not what the Trudeau paid for Corporate media portrayed it as. No quite the opposite. I am waiting to see these trials and having a review of exactly what went down and the lies that have been pushed as truths. They better revoke the heinous law they put in permanently through FINTRAC as well.
Trudeau and his henchmen have destroyed the trust in our Government, our financial system, and our rule of law, (not for the first time either) not just by many Canadians but globally as well. The banks were happy to aid this government any way they could, same with every one that participated in and voted for it in parliament. No one wants to deal with a Banana Republic who can freeze and take peoples bank accounts just like they do in Communist China. Trudeau continually mimics the Communists as he has a admiration for them as they can turn their economy around on a dime. Yes, because they rape the people of their bank accounts, that's why. Not interfere with their charter rights! That's worth a complete belly busting bout of laughter! Inaccurate hyperbole! Well we will just see where the truth lies and I am confident it will not be with the Liberal Government of Canada nor Jagmeet Singh and his NDP! Because they did not like the cause did not give them the right to do this.
You have made a lot of claims in your commentary. It would make your commentary more credible if you backed them up with corroborated reports from reputable news agencies. Until you do so, I will refrain from engaging the substance of your more extreme claims.
I will observe, however, how unreasonable it is to claim that all the Prime Minister had to do was to comply with the demands of the illegal protest organizers. This bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the way in which our system of government is supposed to function (a misunderstanding that some would argue is shared by leading members of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons).
- - - - -
WRT to your charge that there could be no justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Act lists the reasons a government can cite in order to justify such a decision. Section Three of the Act offers insight into the Government's actions:
"For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
"(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
"(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."
Surely it was unsurprising, in light of the occupation of the Parliamentary Precinct and surrounding areas in Ottawa for more than three weeks, the failure of the Ottawa Police Service to exercise effective control (much less remove the illegal occupation) and the failure of the Ontario Government to act in a timely manner, that the Federal Government should decide (after much hesitation) to invoke the Emergencies Act?
Whether this will be found, post facto, to have been an unwarranted move remains to be seen; more on that in a moment.
- - - - -
With regard to the prohibition of public gatherings, Part II, Section 19 of the Act clearly allows for such prohibition if those gatherings "may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace".
Finally, the government must, under the terms of the Act, conduct a review to determine whether this move was justified. For the record, Part VI of the Emergencies Act (Section 63) stipulates that:
"The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency."
I have no issue with your dislike of the Liberal and New Democratic Party leaders, as you are entitled to your views in this regard. Your attempt to call into question the fairness or legality of the proceedings that led to the invocation, however, was miles wide of the mark.
Under Canadian law and Parliamentary process, the Government had every right to propose actions under law. The Official Opposition, on the other hand, had every right to oppose such actions and, by securing sufficient numbers in the House of Commons, to prevent their implementation.
In this particular case, the Conservative Party of Canada made common cause with a Quebec separatist party, yet it still could not secure sufficient support in the House to prevent the Government from moving forward.
All legal and proper under Canadian law and Parliamentary procedure.
Trudeau only had to meet with them, not agree with them. He would not do so. So did he do everything in his power before involving the act. No. He did not. The problem was easily solvable to which the convoy leaders had said. All he had to go was drop the unnecessary passports and end it all. He still hasn’t regardless they want them strickly to gather information on Canadians. That’s why he will continue. They need your information and they will get it . It called a technocracy but again what do I know.
I can understand politicians going on a junket, but executives of big int'l corps. wouldn't go without at least a mental c/b analysis of their attendance.
Many go so there must be some benefit to it. Go to the web site and check out the different business partners. Microsoft, Google, many Banks and Investment Companies. It’s all there for people to see. I just read a article in the Financial Post. They must believe all the conspiracy theories as well. All those Private jets are not just Government leaders and Movie stars. https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-in-canada-follow-the-money-the-ideas. https://www.weforum.org/partners/
This is not really about Klaus Shwab. When you get a group like the WEF, which brings together some of the most powerful people and groups in the world, including the Bill Gates/Big Pharma consortium, investors who own controlling shareholder positions in every major company on the planet including media and tech, and assorted backroom boys/girls from every nation, and they discuss their plans for our future, you can't help but think they'll have some strategy to implement those plans. Then when you see media ignore any covid/vaccine story that is not part of the official message, Big Tech censoring any dissenting information, and Big Pharma wielding its influence over governments worldwide, it's not a conspiracy anymore. We're just joining the dots.
Rambling. Often incoherent. Opinion posited as fact. Lots, and lots, and lots, of personal congratulations. This is what to expect from so-called leaders? When she isn't whistle calling against men for being menacing, she's bullying men for displaying softer qualities. After reading this I have no idea what this woman wants -- other than to hear herself talk. Could she maybe recommend something that needs to happen to heal the divide, and stop the growth of both the extreme right and extreme left in Canada?
"Video also emerged of Klaus Schwab implying that the WEF had influence over attendees who had secured roles in the cabinets of several countries, including Canada. When I saw it, I was shocked at the presumption of the claim that he had influence over Canadian lawmakers by simple virtue of giving them an award."
By accepting the award you gave them leverage over you and permission to use your face and image in their sales literature. That was naive.
As you say, the WEF is largely harmless and I think it exists only to enrich the already-rich. That, and giving the media plebes a chance to hob-nob seems to be its principle value.
Unfortunately, the result back home is even more distrust of elites and a deeper class divide.
Thanks for addressing this. I'm sorry you have to deal with hostile people so much. You're an asset to conservatives, please don't get discouraged.
You bring up good points. I wonder if Schwab is to the right what the Koch brothers are (still?) to the left. Every religion needs a devil, I suppose.
You forgot to mention Steve Bannon, who refers to the elites as "the party of Davos", and has been building an audience on this. WEF isn't helping with their "you will own nothing and be happy" weirdness.
We need to have conversations on these ideas, and dismissing them as "conspiracy theories" doesn't help, it just feeds them.
It's been mentioned elsewhere, but we're seeing the left/right paradigm morph into a upper/lower class dynamic. Elites of all stripes get to hobnob in Switzerland while the great unwashed pray their jobs won't get outsourced and hope energy prices won't crush them. We don't get to debate these ideas that feel like rehashed communism.
Wow, what a serious amount of chutzpah Ms. Rempel-Garner has. A MP in her own bloody party just got up the other day in PARLIAMENT to ask about how many members of government were influenced by this. Read that sentence again. A duly elected member of parliament from the conservative party of canada actually stood up in parliament and asked how many members of government were involved in this. It would also be nice if she would have acknowledged how the right leaning media (hey Ezra Levant, looking directly at you) plays this garbage up with their misleading headlines etc but instead we get.... this.
Thanks for the article and for your service to the country. I hear there is an opening for the top job; have you considered applying for it?
You might want to have a second at the next to last paragraph. Sentences 2 and 3 are identical and I think sentence 4 is missing a word or two after "Twitter bot", perhaps "generated" or created.
Thank you. This is an excellent explanation regarding WEF and conspiracy issues -- or as a convenient cover for them! [/Joke]
I would add a few items that lead to some of the conspiracy issues on both sides. On the observable information side, I would also add a few items:
1) Ngaire Woods, founding dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, at The Great Narrative: A call to action, streamed live on Friday the 12th of November 2021. English subtitles, saying the following:
“The good news is the elites across the world trust each other more and more, so we can come together and design and do beautiful things together. The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So, we can lead, but if people aren’t following, we’re not going to get to where we want to go.”
Source: https://www.weforum.org/events/the-great-narrative-2021/sessions/closing-plenary-03768dee1f
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSKGo5_OuE4
2. When asked about in Parliament, a question about Klaus Schwab and this "cabinet infiltration" was ignored, labelled a "conspiracy theory", and then dismissed without being addressed.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFTVCJr8-qg
3. UN airplanes at North Bay airport on Feb 20, including one that looks intentionally blacked out. This is a few hours from Ottawa, at the same time as the mass police action in Ottawa. There appears to be no public information on why they are there. If it is related to the Ottawa protests, why would multiple UN planes be there for a Canadian protest? Is it UN police brought in to help? What are the implications and legalities of foreign personnel used in policing Canadian protestors and why would the UN support this?
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VIQOJpMhyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiU19VwL1o
4. The use of the Emergencies Act as the first engagement step of the government, with no effort to even discuss issues with the protesters, no existing plan as far as when mandates will end, and no discussion about planning for a plan. No engagement with the issues at all, implying that the issue is not about science or safety as is being used in other jurisdictions, or WHO and other orgs being against vaccine mandates and passports: (https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking).
Combined with the divisive rhetoric, the wrong group of people by vaccination status instead of risk status, and the obsessive single-mindedness about vaccination as the only thing that matters, the implication is the mandates are not about a scientific plan, public health, bioethics, but some other purpose. It appears to be more of politically divisive purposes rather than some global "compliance to authority", but it can fit the latter hypothesis too.
5. The tracking functions of the digital passports, tracking locations of millions of Canadians, and as noted by the protest spokesman, Ben Dichter, the government is tracking which citizens are approaching the border and can to the same with any location in Canada to keep track of who is where. That is fairly dystopian monitoring of the citizens.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STsPovzkwN4
These are all indicative of large issues with respect to transparency, engagement, and information availability to the public. The evidence fits multiple hypotheses; it can fit the narrative in this article or it can fit the "global cabal" narrative.
Simply ignoring the questions (#2) and calling it a conspiracy theory just furthers the conspiracy theory. An answer similar to the article here at The Line would have been much better. There's no explanation; just dismissal. That's a problem.
As suggested here in the article, the secrecy is a problem. People in positions of power, wealth, and influence meeting behind closed doors while talking about trusting each other and working together, and with poor relationships to "the people", implies an ingroup of global "elites" who think of themselves as elites and a ruling class, at odds with the people they "rule over". There's a atmosphere of self-importance, entitlement to rule, and dismissal of their "lessers".
The idea of global "elites" meeting at such organizations in general seems like a very bad idea. The same sort of conspiracies grew out of the Bilderberg meetings as well. If conferences like this are going to happen, they should either exclude politicians or should be a lot more transparent.
I know some of these overlap with the article here, but one that I think needs significant highlighting is, "Those who would mainstream conspiracy theories with newspaper columns or statements in the House of Commons need to do better."
Indeed. On the political side, the PM himself and the House of Commons and Senate debates were quite good examples of this, suggesting the protests were extremists, foreign-funded, racists, misogynists, anti-vax, violent, desecrated the War Memorial (didn't happen), defaced the Terry Fox status (a Canadian flag and a sign saying "Freedom"), and all sorts of insults and conspiracy theories.
The press has been similar to worse. Even The Line here, which claims to reject "bullshit", has published multiple articles claiming that the protest was anti-vax and that the organizers wanted to overthrow the government and insert themselves into it. They confused the Freedom Convoy 2022 with the group, Canada Unity, which had a convoy to Ottawa in Oct 2016 and delivered an MOU to the Senate on Dec 10. Freedom Convoy 2022 started by completely different people in mid-January with a completely different approach. Canada Unity then pivoted their approach to match it and some of them volunteered to help: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/protesting-the-pretext-of-the-protests
The Line has also tried to portray the protests as having a "dark side" and that, while there were "some" people who thought it was all a peaceful protest effort, that in reality there was something else afoot. Except, its stated objectives and approach from the start were peaceful and only about the mandates and passports and that never changed. If there was a dark side in Ottawa, they stayed quiet for 3 weeks, hid themselves well, did nothing, even when the police started beating and assaulting protestors they still did nothing. No guns, no bombs, no fires, no gangs ... nothing. It was entirely consistent with its founding intentions stated publicly many times.
But, will we see the press .-- including independent outlets like The Line -- apologize for their conspiracy theories and getting it wrong? I doubt it, but one can hope.
Politicians and the press have a much greater responsibility because information is their job and people listen to them. People en masse do not listen to me or other commenters on the internet.
Compare the level of bullying and harm. The author here had to deal with some guy seeming threatening in a bar. Sounds quite unfortunate and a little scary. Mainstream press from places like CNN, CBC, and CTV had to deal with boos and hisses, people yelling at them to go away. Indeed, tough.
Now compare that "bullying" to all of the broken families split based on press and politician lies about the protests, or about the risks of unvaccinated people before that. All of the people with lost jobs. Those arrested, banks accounts seized, vehicles seized, lives ruined.
Politicians and the press seem to complain about how hard they have it for having to deal with intimidation, sometimes based on conspiracy theories and sometimes based on bad things that they actually do. That seems completely oblivious to the mass suffering that they, themselves, cause on the populations.
Politicians are supposed to represent the people. They are supposed to listen, engage, and address concerns. They are servants of the public, not critics of the public. The Press are supposed to hold politicians to account, not take ideological sides and not attack the citizens. Neither are supposed to lie, and both have immense responsibility to check their facts, correct their mistakes, and apologize when they get it wrong. Otherwise, many people can get hurt. And they have.
When we have a political class and press that do their jobs properly and with integrity, the population behaves well. We are very far from that place right now. I personally ask that both politicians and the press do some internal evaluation; Are you aiming to tell the truth or just "win"? Are you aiming to inform or to promote a narrative? Have you checked your facts or are you just accepting what you are told?
This is your job. It is not our job; we don't get paid to perform these functions. We get nothing out of writing these comments. My goal is only to correct the mistakes and to fact check the claims of the press and politicians because I care about the state of our society. I don't care about "winning", I care about integrity and honesty. Can you please do the same.
Again, thank you for this article. It is good, but I fear the people who need to hear it won't listen.
Amen to that. If they do not want people repeating Conspiracy theories I suggest they them selves stop creating an atmosphere we’re they can come alive. I have much more to add and I shall do so too. But you nailed it. Let’s not forget the big tech companies playing with the little people and the paid fact checkers as well. There are far more reasons to believe in a conspiracy, if they are happening right in front of you, and collaboration between government, media and big tech companies is all leaning to silence decent, then what do you call it Michelle? Coincidence?
Well said. I hadn't even thought about censorship in this context, but you are right.
When the public sees open and free discussion and debates of people acting in good faith -- but disagreeing -- we can see what is real. We can see that almost all of the freely-speaking experts agree and the few that don't are wackos, so that we know the state of knowledge is pretty solid. Or we can see that the experts disagree and infer that knowledge of the topic is in a state of real uncertainty. Free and open discussion provides a scale to measure by.
When politicians, press, and big tech censor people claiming "misinformation", we can no longer trust what we're told. We no longer have a workable measuring scale because we can see the thumb on it. They have obvious incentive to control the narrative in their own favour. Or, more simply,
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
- R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
Great input.
Game of Thrones? Really?
This is the best comment I have ever read. Well researched, factual and very insightful. Better than the article. Thank you so much. I was wondering if you would consider either running for the PM job or perhaps overseeing the media regulations and not allowing political funding for news media. Can't trust a word of it anymore. And finally, as unpopular as it is to say, I was very proud to be a Canadian for the first time in years because of the Freedom Convoy. And they did a fantastic job of remaining peaceful. They exposed our political system for what is really is...an elite self serving bunch of hypocrites. Thank you again.
Thank you.
I think the "running for PM" question always comes with problems. I think most non-politicians who think about that think in terms of "If I was running things ...". Sure, in that case I think I could do a much better job as could a heck of a lot of people.
But, the reality is that nobody runs for PM exactly, nor does the PM "run" things. You have to be elected by the party to lead the party, which includes being both popular with the public and the party membership. That includes putting forward policies you don't necessarily agree with and some you may detest. If it's a minority government, it means even more of that with a second party.
Then, of course, if you are doing things against the current media goals they will be constantly attacking you. Or, if you fall in line with them, they will protect you.
You can be a great private leader, a great manager, make good decisions through good processes of collecting differing opinions and input, but that won't really help much in politics. I wish it were about hiring a good management team. Unfortunately it's more about branding, promotion, competition, and spin. I don't know if it is possible for honesty and integrity to win and lead because that's not what the press and other politicians are looking for.
Can you imagine a PM or any politician saying that the opposition make a good point that they hadn't considered, that they'd made a mistake, and would change their policies and plans based on the input of the opposition? Yet, that is what is required if such a thing truly happens.
As to the convoy, I am truly saddened that politicians and press missed the amazing opportunity for which participants felt proud to be Canadian and united with people of other provinces and political stripes. It's a lost opportunity. I too felt patriotic and hopeful, quashed by the PM evoking hatred and fear and police-state tactics. Sadly, unless things change, there is no necessity to hold another election for years and by then this whole thing will have been forgotten.
Thank you again. Such a thoughtful reply. It's true isn't it? Real integrity would be to acknowledge an opposition"s point as having merit and perhaps encourage collaboration within the government. There is a bit of that at the provincial level in PEI. I feel really sad these last few weeks watching the convoy, then Ukraine. I guess politics really is a game where the real losers are the people. I recently heard Jordan Peterson respond to the question of has he ever considered going into politics. He answered "yes but I realized I just don't have the stomach for it". I understand what he means. Was good to read your message.
Amen to that!
You watch too much YouTube.
Ben Dichter crosses the border and is waved thru because they already have him on file....as they have millions of others in their database from license plates. Obviously, Ben was vaxxed because he did the Tucker show and then came back. He only had to show it once before. He did a 2nd gig with Tucker towards the end of the occupation. There's not a great big scary database in the QR passport...oh, but there is in your phone. You can be followed anywhere as you are hooked up to a global database for all intents.
There was little peace at the Ottawa occupation. Disgusting people fouled the streets for blocks around for 3 weeks. And we all know the rest. Whom should a PM talk to about the overthrow of his government? 2016 would have been the first time the MOU popped up. The next time was 2019. Pat King's convoy to Ottawa only drove around for a couple of days then left. Oil and gas was that protest and kicking the PM out was still the game plan. So they roll the same MOU in 2022. The occupiers were warned, to leave or get fined, arrested, charged and lose their bank accounts. Also, please take your children home.
I don't want to respond to the rest of your tinfoil hat concerns. You do have some airy-fairy ideas about people though. I suggest some internal evaluation. When you fact check, don't get your info from YouTube, FB, Twitter, and the like.
(Part 1/2)
"You watch too much YouTube." I laughed. I actually spent the last 6 months intentionally not watching Youtube. I gave up on corporate media 15 years ago, tried Twitter circa 2014-15 and gave up as it is a terrible social experiment that brings out the worst in people, ditched Facebook circa 2015.
We are in a hyper-partisan, hyper-tribalist time. Anybody who understands ingroup/outgroup psychology recognized the problems coming and now we're living it out, with partisan censorship and political weaponization of everything from where you shop to what books you read. Purity tests are everywhere, and merely wanting to listen to what "they" say makes you a "traitor". Social media is rapidly and openly censoring based on dissenting views -- at least if popular enough people say it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear that I don't, and never did, believe the WEF/Schwab theories. I am merely citing more reasons why people are believing it. To keep up with news I tend to read. I use Ground.News as the basis for checking biases, listen to a wide range of podcasts across the political spectrum, and read Substack articles including The Line. I try to get a wide variety of inputs.
(On that note, with respect to the WEF conspiracy beliefs, this is not just some fringe thing, and not just some right-wing belief. The Hill's Rising promotes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1_8-jLQkI. Kim is a self-described Liberal. Ryan Grim is hard-left having written for HuffPo and the Intercept, and Robbie Sauve is left-libertarian writing for the Daily Beast and Reason.)
What I do is fact check everybody. Nowadays almost all common sources are biased and driven by tribal narratives, so if somebody claims something in a news article or video I search either their cited sources or, if not cited (all too often), I search for original unedited video or read the source documents.
Your statement appears to be an attempt to just dismiss. Instead of addressing this issues, you attack the person. I could do the same by saying you watch too much corporate media because you clearly believe narratives that are pushed on you and never fact check them yourself.
The tracking of Canadian citizens via the passport app is not denied even by Health Canada. They've fully admitted tracking 33 million Canadians: https://www.newsweek.com/canadas-trucker-convoy-challenges-elites-opinion-1677323
And, Newsweek is rated by Ground.News as "Left-leaning", if that matters. But the same news of this admission is available across the media, like
- National Post: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-public-health-agency-admits-it-tracked-33-million-mobile-devices-during-lockdown
- Toronto Sun: https://torontosun.com/news/national/feds-admit-tracking-33-million-mobile-phone-devices-during-lockdowns
It was also a fully admitted, publicly discussed part of the plan back in 2020, e.g.,
- CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cellphone-tracking-trudeau-covid-1.5508236
- CTV: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/phone-data-reveals-who-is-staying-home-during-covid-19-1.4892194
Also, you didn't listen to Ben Dichter. He has said multiple times that the border guard said, when asked why the agent didn't need to see his QR code, that "Oh, your phone already popped up on my screen and is correlated with your passport."
Now, if you want to claim that he's wrong or lying, and these news sources are full of baloney, go right ahead. I don't know that they are right either, but they seem to be reporting the same thing across the political spectrum and with multiple confirmations across time and sources. Please investigate further and report back if you find that it isn't true.
"There was little peace at the Ottawa occupation. "
There's 100s of hours of livestreaming of it. Ottawalks, Zot, Zoke, Viva Frei, Travel Fun 69, and so on. Please look through it and find the violence. I watched many hours life. I visited it. I would describe it as a love-in of people hugging and coming together in unity across the political and geographic spectrum, from hippies to working class to grandmothers all singing O Canada and uniting around wanting liberal freedoms back and the end to demonizing, tracking, and hurting their fellow Canadians.
Or, we can take the Ottawa police's official statements on the matter:
https://youtu.be/ndvDAJLWFt4
"I think in the climate we now live in in 2022 there's a fair degree of polarization. I can tell you that, while people have made comments that they do not feel safe downtown, we have officers who are on scene 24/7. I've personally spoken to many of those officers who have said, consistently the same message, that this is one of the most reasonable and most welcoming group of protestors they've ever encountered. That is from front-line, uniformed officers standing on the memorial up to and including senior officers who have been in negotiation with the leaders."
You are free to disagree, but please provide links to the video or other evidence you cite.
'Disgusting people fouled the streets for blocks around for 3 weeks. "
Such as? In the livestreams you clearly see them picking up all garbage, shoveling the snow, cleaning the sidewalks. Local downtown residents interviewed in some of the videos say they've never seen the place so clean and never felt so safe walking through the downtown at night. If you have counter-evidence, go for it.
"And we all know the rest. "
No, I don't think we do. I don't even know what you mean by that. What is "the rest"?
"Whom should a PM talk to about the overthrow of his government?"
What overthrow of his government? They never had any demand related to overthrowing the government. Since the start their demands were just to end the vaccine mandates and the vaccine passport, and their approach was always peaceful protest.
You can look at Tamara Lich's Twitter feed from the start: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC
You can look specifically at the demands: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC/status/1484989990241288193
You can read about news articles from the beginning: https://thenationaltelegraph.com/national/truckers-headed-to-ottawa-for-vaccine-mandate-showdown
You can watch her first interview with Marc Patrone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc
Notably, "We are going to roll across Canada. They are going to go to Parliament Hill, sit there and protest -- peacefully, of course -- until these mandates are lifted."
And, "The major issue, of course, is the mandate that just came down on Saturday regarding them being required to have their vaccination passports in order to cross the border."
And (from Marc), "So these are drivers who are vaccinated, unvaccinated ... they just feel that the government has no business forcing people to get the shots. Is that right." to which she replied, "That why we named it the Freedom Convoy. It's not the convoy for the unvaccinated, it's the convoy for freedoms for everybody."
And, "This is bringing people together from all walks of life, all races, all religions, and it is really heartwarming to see the Canada spirit is alive and well.", followed by noting that she is herself indigenous. (And supporters in from Sikhs to Hutterites: https://twitter.com/JimMurp77852985/status/1486707031591591940/photo/1)
They've repeated the same, and explicitly denied the external claims that they want to overthrow government, e.g., in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4KEK7lrNE
@20:25: (Interviewer) "Jagmeet Singh, and then the other members of the media, have said that the convoy's stated objective is to overthrow the government. ... Has Freedom Convoy 2022 ... have they ever said anything like that, similar to that, or something that could be misconstrued as that?"
(Dichter) "No, not even close. That's what elections are for. We're here for mandates and passports. We have a minority government. At some point there's going to be an election and the parties will deal with that. But we have no interest in subverting democracy in any way, shape, or form. This is just about getting our freedoms back and getting rid of this tracking app. That's all."
If you have information that negates all of this, please cite it.
(Continued in comment below, Part 2/2)
(Part 2/2)
"2016 would have been the first time the MOU popped up."
Ah, you have confused Freedom Convoy 2022 with other efforts including Canada Unity. I already looked into that: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/protesting-the-pretext-of-the-protests
That MOU had nothing to do with this protest. That there were some people from Canada Unity or prior efforts who supported or joined in with this protest is obviously going to happen. But then you are just creating some sort of purity test and guilt by association. If somebody at your work, or the party you support, or some cause you support, is convicted of some serious crime, does that mean your workplace, party, or cause are now nullified because of some "virus" from another supporter turning out to be a bad person?
All movements, groups, and efforts have some people who will have some offensive view or some prior activity that looks bad. That doesn't have anything to do with the movement itself. This protest had nothing to do with an MOU or interest in overthrowing a government, and Pat King did not start it or define it. He did support it and participated in it though. (Also, the MOU from Canada Unity in December 2021 was not about overthrowing government, but an inept attempt at some sort of joint oversight committee, with failed delivery on video. It was an inept and ineffectual effort that was completely harmless and went nowhere.)
"The occupiers were warned, to leave or get fined, arrested, charged"
The protesters were indeed fined with plenty of tickets, with a team of lawyers dealing with those, and warned of arrest. As are protesters all the time. Former Green Party leader Elizabeth May was arrested at an anit-pipeline protest while she was leader, along with NDP MP Kennedy Stewart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrjSCLt0Ny8
That's to be expected in protest movements.
"I don't want to respond to the rest of your tinfoil hat concerns."
Again, just said to be dismissive. Which "concern" was specifically "tinfoil hat". Again, if I wasn't clear, and could be my fault, at no time have I believed the Schwab conspiracy. Yes, the WEF clearly has the Great Reset paper, agenda, and Schwab's book, but as the article here points out, it isn't like anybody who goes to the WEF or gets some designated award is suddenly brainwashed and suddenly start acting it out.
"You do have some airy-fairy ideas about people though."
OK, name one. I have education that includes much study of psychology. Maybe I'm wrong about something specific, but I can't know what it is if you don't point out the specific mistake or point me to corrections. Without it, it just looks like you disagree but recognize you have no basis for that belief. You can't convince people of things by calling them names or insulting them. That doesn't work. I recognize that as just venting frustration and perhaps a little cognitive dissonance between available evidence and your own personal beliefs. I could be wrong about that, but that's what it appears like to me.
"I suggest some internal evaluation."
All the time. Every day I evaluate myself. I check sources for everything. I double-check my thinking and if perhaps I've fallen into some cognitive bias. I seek out dissenting views and differing presentations of the same topics, such as at Ground.News. I recommend it for everybody, though it can be hard work sometimes.
"When you fact check, don't get your info from YouTube, FB, Twitter, and the like."
Where are the good places you recommend to get "facts" from? Does the fact a live, unedited video is on Youtube suddenly negate the content of the video? Can you justify that position? Attacking the platform on which the source material is located is just a different version of an ad hominem (attack the person) instead of addressing the argument.
As I've stated above, I don't even watch Youtube, haven't used FB in ~7 years, and haven't been on Twitter (except to tracking down information from the source that happens to be on Twitter) for ~7 years. If you mean to not believe a person's opinion, editing, or presentation of material on these site -- I don't take those as truth. Same with corporate media and politicians. There is no person whose claims are not above checking on any source, from anywhere. Whether it is Youtube or CBC, you shouldn't just believe what you are told -- if that belief matters.
I'm all for you citing and providing differing evidence. Please do.
You post close to 20 links and suggested several more that I should look through. Do you really expect me to spend hours going through each one and then reply? Just so you know for future reference I may be tempted to check out a link or two if that, but better to keep things a bit more succinct. You and others may have time on their hands to do so but I don't. Good luck.
Bravo. I love it. I try, but my expression of things is not nearly as forthcoming. I really like Viva Frei', and Winston his Westie, as I have one too. Thanks for that tip. I will check out the others you mentioned as well. Informative as always.
I would digress to your level of condemnation but that tinfoil hat that I have on deflects your rude and derogatory remarks. The truth by the Corporate media, to which I suggest you get your information from, is government funded and paid to tell you a storyline that reflects the narrative they want you to believe is truth. I have difficulty in accepting any story that is one sided, when ,as part of the human race, we know that there is always two sides to any story. I would suggest you never tried to engage with anyone from the convoy as your story is convoluted with the same narrative expressed by the corporate news. As for YouTube, might I suggest you engage in it to get the other side of a story, and then, as difficult as it is for some people, you can come to your own conclusion. On YouTube (if you actually watched what I posted) is an interview of George Soro's by Christia Freeland. Of course its all misinformation and not truth and should be banned as you say. Its why this world will cease to be a free and democratic one because those being fed the misinformation denigrate those trying to give you a different perspective or both sides of a story. I am not prone to biased ideology such as those spouting a story they deem truth without even looking at both sides and the facts surrounding it. Its why we came up with the name" sheep." There are plenty of those who digest everything they are fed as truth without checking the facts first. Far too many to be completely honest and that is the sad part of the entire situation we face today.
Please do tell, if the corporate media is not to trust who is? I prefer print over video. Where do you get your info from? Is Covid just a big gov plot to sway people in behaving one way or another?
Oh, I have "engaged" as you put it with a couple that drove into Ottawa a few weeks ago. Why the preoccupation with Soros and Schwab and who they know. Even an hour-long discussion would never begin to cover everything these people could discuss. I'm guessing your YouTube video is less than 5 mins?
Did I say something should be banned or are you putting words in my mouth?
A couple of things. Please expand your understanding of what a democracy is and isn't. And did you really come up with the derogatory term, "sheep"? Wow, I'm impressed.
The convoy was an exercise of another point of view. But the delivery was offensive. Most could not articulate what they desperately thought was important. Simply screaming freedom is just not good enough. My personal favourite was a guy looking at the camera/phone telling us, "we are doing it for you". But he couldn't say just what that was.
Did you ever stop to think that the reason you are so positive that "corporate" media is lying to you is that you disagree strongly so therefore they must be wrong, bad, evil, whatever word you prefer?
Anyway, don't worry your little head about it. Give it a couple of more weeks and it will be totally forgotten. Little pop-up news items when those incarcerated go to court, but that's all they wrote.
The actions were not illegal. They'll all get over it, other than the few who are being charged with criminal offenses. Truly, the convoy is going to go the way of the last convoy; only people who were directly impacted will remember. For some it's good times, for more it's like a bad smell. I am not a misogynist. Why do you call people names? Have you been following what is happening elsewhere?
1-If you don't want to be name called I would suggest you stop telling people to not worry their little head over important issues. It is condescending. Its the same as name calling so if you sink to that level its most likely others will follow.
2-Have you stopped to think about the reason for The Line in the first place? Hence what is your definition of reputable? The reason the convoy disallowed the mainstream media into any press conferences was because of their biased reporting that most people are very aware of. First and foremost the reason the Line was introduced was to combat that. We all have a bias but its when we allow that bias to tint everything in one way we no longer deal in facts but in views. That is what journalism to day. The way they see it instead of just the facts. What they disagree with gets tainted with their brush. In other words its not objective.
3. These actions went against the right for Canadian's to protest, whether you like what the protest is about is not. Every protest has its rabble rousers and those with darker intent. Every protest. The Government can not pick and chose who is allowed to protest, where, and for what reasons, as that defeats the entire Charter. All Canadians have the right to protest and to be treated equally by the law. Period.
4. As a person who donated and backed the convoy I am insulted by your lack of compassion, your reasoning that has been produced by those news media that deemed it a bad smell as well.
You had no idea except what the media told you about either protest that came to Ottawa. There was no jury involved in the first protest so hopefully this goes before the courts so Canadians from both sides can see the facts, not hyperbole, political bias, or the Corporate media's views. Just the facts. So lets leave this here and both await the outcome of the trials. I don't care if they debate this in parliament as that is just more of the same. What I want are facts and reasoning not bias and partisanship. I am as biased as the next person as I believed in the cause. I believed in the actions of those in Ottawa. I did not believe in blockades. It goes against my rule of law ideals but you can not punish some unless you are willing to punish others for the same actions. That goes for all protests regardless of what they are about. We are all equal under the law. Period.
https://youtu.be/wEia2jzxugE
It would be nice if MP's acted like our representatives in Ottawa as opposed to Ottawa's representative in our ridings. Then people might feel like their MP was working for them, not for the government, or PMO.
And never votes against the party line, regardless of what her constituents think or want. Am I right? Has she ever voted against the party line?
I don't expect my MP to be someone I can control with a button on my computer. I expect her to make good judgements that are in the best interests of the country. To believe that they should only be our avatars in Ottawa (and only vote as their constituents tell them to) is to misunderstand what representative democracy is about.
My understanding of representative democracy is that individuals voted in by the people (demos, democracy, democratic) will sit in parliament as our representatives. They may not be how it actually works, but that's how I understand it should work. A little something I picked up many years ago during my political science degree. When Jody Wilson Raybould showed good judgement (literally), by following the law, she was booted from caucus. Jane Philpott showed good judgement in siding with her and was treated likewise. Nathaniel Erskine Smith and Charlie Angus showed good judgement (in keeping with every constitutional and legal scholar I have read so far) in vocally opposing the implementation of the emergencies act, but subsequently voted along party lines. Anthony Rota showed good judgement by insisting that PHAC and the Trudeau government obey the will of Parliament, and he ended up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. So I don't see a whole lot of good judgement being used during parliamentary votes. As for MP's being controlled by a push of a button, that seems to be the sole privilege of the party leaders.
Your comment corroborates what I wrote: "I don't expect my MP to be someone I can control with a button on my computer. I expect her to make good judgements that are in the best interests of the country."
Jody Wilson-Raybould was exactly the sort of representative that any sensible person would want--someone who, in the clutch will vote h-e-r own conscience (not mine or that of the political controllers in Canada's main political parties). We must acknowledge, though, that she also "toed the line" (as others must also do).
Having said that, you likely know, as a political science major, that we've had vigorous debate in Canada about how party discipline is imposed by those parties.
Some sensible people (including David Kilgour and analysts who have written on the topic for Policy Options) suggest that party discipline stifles democracy and have advocated for a approach that does not depend on "whipping the vote".
Others suggest that without party discipline it would be more difficult to hold the governing party to account; they also note that lobbyists would have a field day because they would exploit the removal of all party discipline by putting enormous pressure on individual parliamentarians.
I would agree that our parties need to be less stifling (and thus more welcoming of diverse opinions within their ranks). Relegating political staffers to a subordinate role would go some way to dealing with this issue.
But to do away with it altogether? I don't think so.
c.f.: Alex Marland, The stifling conformity of party discipline: Seeking information, offering suggestions, arguing, saying no — these are all things that backbenchers should be doing regularly inside caucus, Policy Options, 21 March 2019, https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2019/the-stifling-conformity-of-party-discipline/
c.f.: Ekaterina Stepanova, Party discipline does not hinder good governance: Allowing free votes in the House of Commons is not a good idea for reform, Canadian Study of Parliament Group essay, University of Western Ontario, 2005, https://cspg-gcep.ca/pdf/Winning_Essay_E_Stepanova_2005-e.pdf
Michele, you cannot possibly be so naïve as to think that when a group of undeniable elites from both government and business enabled the richest in the world to dramatically increase their wealth from government largess during a worldwide pandemic that there is no link. Maybe there is no conspiracy but only coincidence -- in the same way that there was never any "old boy" conspiracy or glass ceiling or racial bias.
I don’t think the author is doing it intentionally - but this article is just more elite gaslighting. We all understand that the WEF isn’t sending instructions to Justin Trudeau. On the other hand the author seems to be trying to make us believe that the WEF isn’t influential - while showing how influential they are. There is a video circulating from the Canadian Bankers Association pitching a digital ID for all Canadians. The video explicitly discusses how this is supported by the WEF. Banks in Canada are enormously influential - and apparently they really care what the WEF thinks. The idea of a digital ID is creepy and authoritarian. It is linked to one of the proposals from the Trudeau government that we should never be anonymous on the internet- that we are always linked to our online ID. Which of course is linked to the very real Covid pass we have all been forced to carry around. The reason Trudeau, big banks, and their enablers in the media would like this became pretty clear last week. It will make crushing dissent much more efficient. By seizing peoples ability to function financially- by doxxing ridiculing and attacking them - all outside normal judicial channels. So call me a conspiracy theorist. Trudeau showed us how brutal a Canadian government can get - and how compliant the media and big corporations are when that happens. All of this appears to be WEF approved.
The concerns with the WEF playbook are global. I appreciate your well thought out submission and hope your downplaying of your WEF involvement is true. It is reported that both Freelund & Carney are WEF board members - if this is true this implies their involvement is based more on ideology - not just an opportunity to hobnob with the global elites.
Yes, lets hope the goals of "The Great Reset" are just pie in the sky and the long list of global politicians & elites who are attached to this movement are in fact just a glorified group of busy bodies with nothing better to do. Only time will tell.
It is very sad that extreme behavior towards our politicians & influencers both on the web and in person is occurring, but it cannot be a surprise as the increasing level of divisive speech steers people to the extremes.
Better yet why not boycott the WEF altogether? If it’s merely for the elite how does that bear well for society in general? It smacks of old time mens club in the Victorian era, and only worsens the class divide in Canada and other nations.
Just move along folks...nothing to see here. It's all a big nothingburger. Don't bother your little heads about foreign ideological influences or lobby money...the government will take good care of you and do what's right for Canada. You just have to trust us.
There are also many facts, and to some they matter. For instance, the fact that Christia Freeland (aka protégé writer of the biography of George Soro's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdUaEE7mr2w ) is a sitting member on the WEF Board of Trusties, as was Marc Carney, Mr. Fink (Blackrock Investments https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/blackrock-inc/ ) all who are in positions of either Governmental or financial influence in Canada. If one is to look on the WEF site there are many of the Business Partners with the WEF who are extremely large and influential in Big Pharma names such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Big technology we all know who they are, biochemistry and financial Investment Companies and Banks.
I believe that Michelle has left out the Liberal's Canada Investment Bank to which there were multiple stories by main stream newspapers depicting the connections of which has had much influence and cooperation with BlackRock Investments. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj7grnV-Zj2AhW5LTQIHQGGBPwQFnoECCoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcampaignforaccountability.org%2Fnew-report-adds-to-conflict-of-interest-concerns-surrounding-blackrocks-advisory-role-in-trudeaus-canada-infrastructure-bank%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ViNzwE5kYo4FT8vLPfCAh
When one considers how BlackRock has become so influential in the investment world as it takes in Government(taxpayers) money from countries around the world to invest in globalist agendas makes conspiracies difficult to explain away. Perhaps its just plain collusion by these big financiers and globalist Governments, you pick.
The Liberal Party was voted in with the promise of transparency and accountability to the people. They are the most secretive and corrosive Government I have seen in my life time. They audit nothing, as they do not supply auditors with enough money to audit anything. There is zero accountability and denigration of those who dare ask for it. Everything is a secret that must be kept from our Parliament and the elected officials of the people they are suppose to be serving. The stunts and actions of the Liberals leaves anyone who has any suspicions of foul play a gambit of reasons to consider anything is possible. Conspiracy or not. If one looks at the facts, one has to assume something is going on and it obvious there is collusion between financial institutions and Government. Collusion between main stream media and Government. That is called fascism Michelle.
The silencing of decent, the constant gaslighting of the people, and turning into authoritarian regime when someone dares stand up to the group think and constant power grab, the media and Liberal/NDP coalition government attack them like hungry wolves. Conspiracy theory is what globalists use to denigrate people as being uneducated and leaning off the edge. Its to downplay the whole idea they could possibly be doing something nefarious. They are hiding much and by doing so they create the atmosphere for conspiracy, or its collusion again, you pick.
No Government does what this government has to keep things from the public. So you can call it what ever you like Michell but for now their actions have been secret and lately just plain evil. Remember if you say anything loud and long enough people will believe it, if not just to shut you up.
There has been partisanship on all sides, but we do not live in an authoritarian regime.
If I may say, your resort to epithets such as "globalist" is not actually an invitation to discussion and debate. For the record, the term was invented by Stephen Bannon and his Breitbart Network precisely to megaphone an anti-globalization, anti-establishment message.
I think Trudeau just proved you wrong with the over reach in using the energency act. I rest my case.
Hysterical hyperbole. Instead of invoking the language of the extremist, why don't you explain to the rest of us how the short-term invocation of a piece of legislation that was introduced in the 1980s and forbids the suspension of Charter rights can constitute "over reach"?
There are very specific demands made of any government that chooses to invoke the Emergencies Act. There are also stipulations in place requiring a parliamentary review. What's more, in Canada people who object to any government action can choose to challenge such actions in the Canadian court system.
How you can claim that we live in an "authoritarian state" in light of all that (and laws guaranteeing the existence of independent news media agencies)?
As I said, hysterical (and inaccurate) hyperbole.
I would suggest you do some research on the nonsense you just wrote while calling me hyperbole and hysterical. First, Trudeau and his government along with the equally dystopian Jag meet are being challenged because they did not meet the requirements. Not even close. Second, if their actions forbid the suspension of charter rights, how would you account for freezing bank accounts, taking property, arresting people with no due process. Sir if that is not breaking your charter of rights and freedoms, I am afraid your unaware of what is in the charter. Second they were deemed terrorists! They have even black listed those farmers who donated or participated from getting loans from the Federal Farmers Bank ! So excuse me for being somewhat hyperbole but your so uninformed and completely in the illiberal mindset that your cant tell fact from fiction. Arrested, charged and jailed with no due process, no bail for some, and their bank accounts frozen. How are they to get money to pay for bail? They had their property seized. Insurance revoked, as well as mortgages and loans possibly revoked. How does that not walk all over the Charter of rights and freedoms. That happened to people who happened to donate because they backed the cause. Some of the police in Ottawa also donated as did business. Of course the Liberals and Jag meet were out of bounds and completely out of their minds. FINTRAC said there was no nefarious or suspicious transactions on any of the funding sites as it was just people donating to their cause. They made up stories and the news media ran with them and they demonized these protesters, named called them, and then sent in a police riot teams to beat, trample, and illegally, remove them. They were not doing anything illegal except parking. Which they were getting ticketed for! They even had an injunction put against them for horn honking so they quit honking. They moved trucks out of residential neighborhood to aid the police and mayor when they asked. They were peaceful and were doing nothing illegal. Not even one broken window, no damage to any property, and the crime in the downtown area dropped because they were there. The mayor was a friend of Trudeau from SNC Lavalin and so he was playing politics instead of dealing with things properly. All Trudeau had to do was send a representative to speak to the truckers and that would have deescalated it right there. But they did not do anything to de-escalate it and instead tried to rile them by berating and name calling these protester. They were not blocking any boarders as they had already been disbursed. Even when the trained monkeys were sent in with batons and horses to beat on them they did not retaliate as that is the whole intention of beating people, is to anger them so they retaliate. Did not infringe on their charter rights! There is three law suits against this government. Then I hope they go after the funding site, the person that leaked the names, the mainstream media as well. Now excuse me but when has this ever been used for any protest in Canada. When twenty men attacked workers with axes and started fire to the truck the men were in, not to mention destroy millions of dollars worth of equipment along with harm the police and keep them from getting to the site. Did you see any emergency act go in! This was happening while the police were beating peaceful protesters! The thugs at the Coastal Gas pipeline were barely mentioned while your Corporate media denigrated these peaceful protesters who had not harmed a soul. There was a man continually walking around live streaming the protest every day and there was not one thing that was illegal. That's not what the Trudeau paid for Corporate media portrayed it as. No quite the opposite. I am waiting to see these trials and having a review of exactly what went down and the lies that have been pushed as truths. They better revoke the heinous law they put in permanently through FINTRAC as well.
Trudeau and his henchmen have destroyed the trust in our Government, our financial system, and our rule of law, (not for the first time either) not just by many Canadians but globally as well. The banks were happy to aid this government any way they could, same with every one that participated in and voted for it in parliament. No one wants to deal with a Banana Republic who can freeze and take peoples bank accounts just like they do in Communist China. Trudeau continually mimics the Communists as he has a admiration for them as they can turn their economy around on a dime. Yes, because they rape the people of their bank accounts, that's why. Not interfere with their charter rights! That's worth a complete belly busting bout of laughter! Inaccurate hyperbole! Well we will just see where the truth lies and I am confident it will not be with the Liberal Government of Canada nor Jagmeet Singh and his NDP! Because they did not like the cause did not give them the right to do this.
You have made a lot of claims in your commentary. It would make your commentary more credible if you backed them up with corroborated reports from reputable news agencies. Until you do so, I will refrain from engaging the substance of your more extreme claims.
I will observe, however, how unreasonable it is to claim that all the Prime Minister had to do was to comply with the demands of the illegal protest organizers. This bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the way in which our system of government is supposed to function (a misunderstanding that some would argue is shared by leading members of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons).
- - - - -
WRT to your charge that there could be no justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Act lists the reasons a government can cite in order to justify such a decision. Section Three of the Act offers insight into the Government's actions:
"For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
"(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
"(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."
Surely it was unsurprising, in light of the occupation of the Parliamentary Precinct and surrounding areas in Ottawa for more than three weeks, the failure of the Ottawa Police Service to exercise effective control (much less remove the illegal occupation) and the failure of the Ontario Government to act in a timely manner, that the Federal Government should decide (after much hesitation) to invoke the Emergencies Act?
Whether this will be found, post facto, to have been an unwarranted move remains to be seen; more on that in a moment.
- - - - -
With regard to the prohibition of public gatherings, Part II, Section 19 of the Act clearly allows for such prohibition if those gatherings "may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace".
Finally, the government must, under the terms of the Act, conduct a review to determine whether this move was justified. For the record, Part VI of the Emergencies Act (Section 63) stipulates that:
"The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency."
C.f.: Emergencies Act R.S.C. 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.), Parliament of Canada, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-4.5.pdf
- - - - -
I have no issue with your dislike of the Liberal and New Democratic Party leaders, as you are entitled to your views in this regard. Your attempt to call into question the fairness or legality of the proceedings that led to the invocation, however, was miles wide of the mark.
Under Canadian law and Parliamentary process, the Government had every right to propose actions under law. The Official Opposition, on the other hand, had every right to oppose such actions and, by securing sufficient numbers in the House of Commons, to prevent their implementation.
In this particular case, the Conservative Party of Canada made common cause with a Quebec separatist party, yet it still could not secure sufficient support in the House to prevent the Government from moving forward.
All legal and proper under Canadian law and Parliamentary procedure.
Trudeau only had to meet with them, not agree with them. He would not do so. So did he do everything in his power before involving the act. No. He did not. The problem was easily solvable to which the convoy leaders had said. All he had to go was drop the unnecessary passports and end it all. He still hasn’t regardless they want them strickly to gather information on Canadians. That’s why he will continue. They need your information and they will get it . It called a technocracy but again what do I know.
I can understand politicians going on a junket, but executives of big int'l corps. wouldn't go without at least a mental c/b analysis of their attendance.
Many go so there must be some benefit to it. Go to the web site and check out the different business partners. Microsoft, Google, many Banks and Investment Companies. It’s all there for people to see. I just read a article in the Financial Post. They must believe all the conspiracy theories as well. All those Private jets are not just Government leaders and Movie stars. https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-in-canada-follow-the-money-the-ideas. https://www.weforum.org/partners/
This is not really about Klaus Shwab. When you get a group like the WEF, which brings together some of the most powerful people and groups in the world, including the Bill Gates/Big Pharma consortium, investors who own controlling shareholder positions in every major company on the planet including media and tech, and assorted backroom boys/girls from every nation, and they discuss their plans for our future, you can't help but think they'll have some strategy to implement those plans. Then when you see media ignore any covid/vaccine story that is not part of the official message, Big Tech censoring any dissenting information, and Big Pharma wielding its influence over governments worldwide, it's not a conspiracy anymore. We're just joining the dots.
Rambling. Often incoherent. Opinion posited as fact. Lots, and lots, and lots, of personal congratulations. This is what to expect from so-called leaders? When she isn't whistle calling against men for being menacing, she's bullying men for displaying softer qualities. After reading this I have no idea what this woman wants -- other than to hear herself talk. Could she maybe recommend something that needs to happen to heal the divide, and stop the growth of both the extreme right and extreme left in Canada?
"Video also emerged of Klaus Schwab implying that the WEF had influence over attendees who had secured roles in the cabinets of several countries, including Canada. When I saw it, I was shocked at the presumption of the claim that he had influence over Canadian lawmakers by simple virtue of giving them an award."
By accepting the award you gave them leverage over you and permission to use your face and image in their sales literature. That was naive.
As you say, the WEF is largely harmless and I think it exists only to enrich the already-rich. That, and giving the media plebes a chance to hob-nob seems to be its principle value.
Unfortunately, the result back home is even more distrust of elites and a deeper class divide.
Run for leader.
Some random thoughts:
Thanks for addressing this. I'm sorry you have to deal with hostile people so much. You're an asset to conservatives, please don't get discouraged.
You bring up good points. I wonder if Schwab is to the right what the Koch brothers are (still?) to the left. Every religion needs a devil, I suppose.
You forgot to mention Steve Bannon, who refers to the elites as "the party of Davos", and has been building an audience on this. WEF isn't helping with their "you will own nothing and be happy" weirdness.
We need to have conversations on these ideas, and dismissing them as "conspiracy theories" doesn't help, it just feeds them.
It's been mentioned elsewhere, but we're seeing the left/right paradigm morph into a upper/lower class dynamic. Elites of all stripes get to hobnob in Switzerland while the great unwashed pray their jobs won't get outsourced and hope energy prices won't crush them. We don't get to debate these ideas that feel like rehashed communism.
I want to assure Michelle that those of us left of centre certainly do not regard the WEF as left of centre.
Wow, what a serious amount of chutzpah Ms. Rempel-Garner has. A MP in her own bloody party just got up the other day in PARLIAMENT to ask about how many members of government were influenced by this. Read that sentence again. A duly elected member of parliament from the conservative party of canada actually stood up in parliament and asked how many members of government were involved in this. It would also be nice if she would have acknowledged how the right leaning media (hey Ezra Levant, looking directly at you) plays this garbage up with their misleading headlines etc but instead we get.... this.
Thanks for the article and for your service to the country. I hear there is an opening for the top job; have you considered applying for it?
You might want to have a second at the next to last paragraph. Sentences 2 and 3 are identical and I think sentence 4 is missing a word or two after "Twitter bot", perhaps "generated" or created.
Yes please, run...run fast.