Sandra Finley

Jun 052020

April 23, 2020

TO:  Michael Bryant, Executive Director and General Counsel, CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc)

CC:  Brenda McPhail

It was good to hear Michael Enright’s interview of CCLA’s Brenda McPhail, Sunday Edition, April 19th   (CCLA, Director, Privacy, Technology & Surveillance Project).

Brenda did a fine job of addressing the implications of Personal Data Collection.


ONE QUESTION —-   WHY is the Canadian Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information not rolled out in full force?  I just don’t get it.

It is stated with eloquence in the case law associated with Section 8 of the Charter (protection against undue “search and seizure”)  R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281:

In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

It is as though those words were never written.  WHY?   To me they are phenomenally important.  Every citizen in Canada should know they exist in that form and context.

2017-06-13  on The Sunday Edition, host Michael Enright stated “Canadians do not have a Charter Right to Privacy . . . ”.

I believe the statement to be demonstrably not true.   Michael was not so blunt this time around, on 2020-04-19.  But in the interview with Brenda, the Charter Right was, as usual, not articulated.

I deliberately used passion in my input to the CBC in 2017 because I do not know how otherwise to engage in an informed and serious discussion on this topic.   It was not the first time I tried to get “the goods” on the Charter Right, Privacy of Personal Info, to the CBC for their use.   Maybe passion would work?   I happened to have just read another atrocity from World War 2 that was enabled by state collection of detailed information on citizens.  The letter to the Sunday Edition in 2017 is at

If I am wrong in my understanding of the Charter Right, for the love of God please tell me.  The Charter Right, the criteria required to satisfy a Court that a Section 1 override is warranted, how Prosecutors get around the “Oakes Test” in the case of the Charter Right, are well documented on my website.  The information base has been developed by working with a group of like-minded Canadians.  Since 2003.  And from experience, 5 years in and out of Court, working with a young lawyer who had a passion for Privacy Law.

I just do not understand WHY, if I am wrong, someone will not at least have the courtesy to point out the error in argument.

2011-01-21 Are StatsCan surveys mandatory?  Interpretation of the Law.

Lockheed Martin, StatsCan, Charter Right Privacy, Trial  

The highest volume postings on my website are the ones related to state collection of data on citizens and surveillance.  For almost a year, I have been pretty well absent from “my work”.  Surprising to me, the hits on those postings never stop.  The numbers just keep rising. 

Thank-you for your efforts to defend democracy in Canada.   Please just tell me why the Canadian Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is not even worthy of mention (at minimum).

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

Jun 052020

I do not expect Canadian Media to air discussion on this issue.  Yet I believe it to be central to understanding.

Sent to CBC Radio, The Current,  June 6th.

The seat on the UN Security Council:

Why would a majority of other countries vote for Norway or Ireland, not Canada?

Put yourself in their shoes, look through their eyes. Realistically.

A vote for Canada is a vote for the U.S.    But the U.S. already has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

U.S. military might in the world is dangerous.

The American and Canadian military are integrated and “compatible”:

  •  the Canada First Defence Strategy in 2008
  •  the “Troop Exchange Agreement” (“Civil Assistance Plan”) also in 2008


The media hardly recognizes that Canadians do not have sovereignty over our military or corporate sectors. They do finally acknowledge the existence of FVEY, perhaps that is a first step.

It is easier for people from outside the self to see the self more objectively. A majority of other countries may not vote for Canada because they understand that a vote for Canada is a vote that supports the United States and its foreign policies.

Sandra Finley

May 152020

If our decisions are to be based on science and logic

we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument.


An article from Concordia University. 

I think there is a  mix-up of cause-and-effect.    You serve democracy – – tell me if I’m wrong.

Why does Sandra waste my time?  this is inconsequential – – until you consider the consequence.

The inability to distinguish between cause and effect

ENABLES the Canadian status quo.

Very Serious Matters perennially receive lip service

In this illustration – – corruption.

I use the example of former Canadian Attorney-General, Jody Wilson-Raybould (I am not talking about racism.)


 In those countries, power is enhanced by the complementary nature of two genders contributing. The added value of this complementary factor in business management, for example, has been the subject of several studies. One of them, entitled “Delivering through Diversity,” by American consulting firm McKinsey, suggests that businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better financially.  (Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic  from Concordia University.)

ASIDE:  re McKinsey as reference.  Corporate material has self-interest.  Who typically climbs ladders in corporatocracy?  The sex (male/female) of the climbers is irrelevant.   There is abundant documentation of sociopathic, corrupt, propagandist behavior in large numbers of corporations.  There is minimal basis for Trust.  Researchers undermine their work by quoting self-interested sources.  Put “McKinsey” into “search”, top right corner of this blog.  )

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Back to 

IS there an error in argument, failure to distinguish between cause and effect?

Is it  A:    “businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better“?   (which is used to support the argument that nations led by women are doing better at managing covid)

Could it be  B:   businesses – – entities, even families – –  that are MORE EQUITABLE (impartial, fair, just)  perform better?

If B is more accurate, one CAUSE of inferior performance in general in Canada, one that dodges sustained efforts to correct is corruption – – read on.   

The status quo is enabled by incorrectly identifying equitable gender balance as causal.   

IS IT an effect?

Women (not only women) can advance to achieve parity of opportunity where there is EQUITY and DIVERSITY.

Research shows that the decisions of a monoculture group will usually be inferior.  That makes sense to me – –  primarily one view, one sensibility reaches the table; people at the table largely agree with each other.  Decisions are thereby shielded, whether the group is aware of  their bias or not.

Introduce a different view and sensibility.  What happens?  Not always but likely,  no matter how wrong “the gang” is and how right the interloper is, the interloper will be marginalized or edged out of the group.  Others around the table don’t really process/hear the different view, or if they do,  they rationalize it away.  Some will go along to get along.  Some will go along with the hope of future reward.

To me, the experience of former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould, familiar to Canadians, is an instructive example. There was no way for her to do her job in the Canadian political – commercial arena.  The consequence was inferior performance of the – – Governing Body in this case.  In spite of superior performance by Wilson-Raybould.

SNC-Lavalin is only one of the seriously corrupting influences in Canada.   A critical mass of  the persons at the table, regardless whether Liberal or Conservative, business person or politician,  does not allow new entrants with different views to stray outside the limits.   BUT WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENT VIEW DEFENDED BY WILSON-RAYBOULD?

The “diversity” that Wilson-Raybould brought to the table was perpendicular – – straight up – – insistence on the Rule of Law.  She was the Attorney-General.  A few others around the Cabinet table supported her.   They are gone now.

The political-commercial power networks in Canada rationalize wrong behaviour.  They are “loyal”;  they “have each others’ backs”.  The monoculture can make very bad decisions.

Impartiality, fairness, and justice, are impossible without the Rule of Law.   Enforcement of laws is a critical component.  They cannot be rationalized away.

HOWEVER,  the necessary attributes (the Rule of Law – – no one is above the law) are anathema to those around the table, who like their power and their club members.  Solidarity fortifies the status quo.  Maybe it’s a survival tactic.  A critical mass do not want to be ruled by the Laws, all things considered.  The Laws are for the commoners, not them.  They do not lead by example.   In that circumstance the leadership has to come from the ground up, seems to me.  There comes a time to say “enough is enough.  You’ve gone too far.”  Serious corruption, in all its various forms, takes us all down.  Look around the planet if you have doubt.

It’s about two-tiered justice and people with money trying to receive a better deal from the political-economic system for their power group.   The top guys at SNC Lavalin are not subject to the Rule of Law.  Nor are the people to whom they make large contributions.

So, do “Businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better ?” 

NO.   It is an EFFECT observed in groups with a strong ethic of 



justice, and

the rule of law.

Or, of a targeted program, for example.   

If our decisions are to be based on science and logic

we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument,

most especially amongst those who are custodians of  our knowledge base (professors and teachers).  They have a sacred trust.

We cannot afford to confuse effect with cause, if we are to progress as we must.


When an EFFECT is paraded as CAUSE we reward the power structure.  They receive another free pass. 

We refuse to address (research, in the case of the University) the ROOT of the problem: 

CORRUPTION in its many forms.


Thank-you Derek for your Comment:  Cause and effect are an endless chain. Any one cause creates a result which is the cause of the next result.. Difficult to say which comes first.

May 152020

In my view,  cause-and-effect have been confused in this article.

Explained at:

– – – – – – – – –

Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic

Since the beginning of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, there’s been a lot of media attention paid to the relationship between female leaders at the helm of various nations and the effectiveness of their handling of the COVID-19 crisis.

The actions of female leaders in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Taiwan and New Zealand are cited as supporting evidence that women are managing the crisis better than their male counterparts. Resilience, pragmatism, benevolence, trust in collective common sense, mutual aid and humility are mentioned as common features of the success of these women leaders.

It would be easy to conclude outright that women make better leaders than men. Our academic education and experience as certified corporate directors, however, tell us that would be an overly simplistic verdict, and it’s actually more complicated than that.

Let’s broaden our perspective. What if countries led by women are managing the pandemic more effectively not because they are women, but because the election of women is a reflection of societies where there is a greater presence of women in many positions of power, in all sectors?

Greater involvement of women results in a broader perspective on the crisis, and paves the way for the deployment of richer and more complete solutions than if they had been imagined by a homogeneous group.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen celebrates victory with her supporters in Taipei. Taiwan has managed to curb the coronavirus pandemic despite its proximity to China. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying)

Equitable countries managing pandemic better

Let’s see how this hypothesis holds up, based on the World Economic Forum’s annual study on gender parity among countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Gender parity is measured in terms of the participation of men and women in society and the opportunities available to each gender in terms of access to health, education and employment, among others. The forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020 ranks countries in terms of their gender equality performance. Those that have fought the pandemic most effectively and are led by women rank high on the list.

The report also shows those same countries rank high when it comes to having women on corporate boards. It therefore leads us to conclude that more egalitarian societies are better managed.

In those countries, power is enhanced by the complementary nature of two genders contributing. The added value of this complementary factor in business management, for example, has been the subject of several studies. One of them, entitled “Delivering through Diversity,” by American consulting firm McKinsey, suggests that businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better financially.

Are countries with greater gender parity managed differently? We observe that in these ecosystems, leadership is driven by supposed “feminine qualities” — empathy, compassion, listening and collaboration. These are distinct from the characteristics associated with the exercise of traditional managerial, supervisory and controlling power.

It should be noted, however, that these different gender-based attributes are more reflective of the perceptions, stereotypes and biases that characterize our societies. Women can display supposedly male management traits and vice versa.

Female-type leadership required

That means gender-balanced environments produce more robust decisions. These environments also represent leadership where female-like values dominate.

The challenges of the 21st century call for a new type of leadership, different from that based on command and control. These challenges include climate change, health, the environment, the depletion of the Earth’s resources, the aging population and the shortage of talent, the virtual management of production and employee contributions and the development of new technologies.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern holds up a map showing a new warning system for COVID-19 in Wellington. New Zealand has set an ambitious goal to not only contain the coronavirus, but to eliminate it completely. (AP Photo/Nick Perry)

This new type of leadership primarily involves resilience, courage, flexibility, listening, empathy, collaboration, caring and recognition of collective contribution. The participation of everyone’s intelligence becomes the key to success. These are all characteristics of traditionally feminine management.

In order to overcome the obstacles of the 21st century and to be successful, organizations and countries must therefore diversify their sources of talent as much as possible, giving priority to gender.

Let’s look at the Canadian business world as an example.

Work-family balance

The various difficulties encountered by women due to bias, stereotypes, work-family balance, absences due to maternity and corporate policies that are not adapted to the unique challenges faced by women result in few of them reaching the highest levels of Canadian organizations. Only four per cent of the positions of president and chief executive officer are held by women, and none of them are among the 60 largest companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Another area where there is a need for action is STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). In its report, “Cracking the Code: Education of Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM),” UNESCO makes this disturbing observation:

“Only 35 per cent of girls worldwide study STEM subjects … only three per cent of female students in higher education choose to study information and communication technologies (ICT). This gender disparity is all the more alarming as STEM careers are often referred to as the jobs of the future, the engine of innovation, social well-being, inclusive growth and sustainable development.

There is an urgent need to increase the representation of women in all positions of influence. Our female students, among others,need female role models to encourage them to go for it.

In this regard, the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University in Montréal is increasing its efforts to hire female teachers and researchers to make women’s presence in the classroom a norm, not an exception. Only this balance will pave the way for new leadership, creating a better world.

May 142020

Mr. Stone, a longtime friend of President Trump, had denied such a relationship,

but newly revealed court documents unveiled private exchanges.


By Sharon LaFraniere


WASHINGTON — One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump’s longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.


Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump’s world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.


Now hundreds of pages of court documents from the federal investigation of Mr. Stone, released late Monday, show that at least after the election, the two men had maintained a personal relationship. Mr. Stone had repeatedly denied that fact after federal and congressional inquiries got underway.


Records show he exchanged messages with Mr. Assange in June 2017, seven months after Mr. Trump’s election victory. The men discussed a different federal inquiry into the release by WikiLeaks in 2010 of classified American documents, a decade-long saga that resulted in criminal charges against Mr. Assange.


“If the US government moves on you I will bring down the entire house of cards,” Mr. Stone wrote in a private Twitter message to Mr. Assange. In another message, Mr. Stone said that he was trying to intercede “at the highest level of government” on Mr. Assange’s behalf. “Fed treatment of you and WikiLeaks is an outrage,” he wrote.


Mr. Assange is now in a London prison, fighting extradition to the United States.


The records shed no new light on whether Mr. Stone, 67, directly communicated with Mr. Assange before the election. Investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, failed to resolve that question at least in part because both Mr. Stone and Mr. Assange refused to cooperate. The team found insufficient evidence to charge anyone associated with the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to influence the results of the election.


Questioned by a congressional committee about his contacts with WikiLeaks in September 2017, Mr. Stone lied repeatedly under oath. He was convicted last year of obstructing a congressional inquiry, lying to federal authorities and witness tampering and was later sentenced to 40 months in prison. He has yet to begin serving his prison term, and has repeatedly and publicly implored Mr. Trump to pardon him.


In a statement, Mr. Stone reiterated his protests that he was wrongly prosecuted and said that the documents showed “the baseless overreach of the Mueller witch hunt and exonerate me from the crazed left-wing media charges of Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration and the receipt and dissemination of stolen emails, false narratives that ruined my life for the last three years.”


The hundreds of pages of search warrants and affidavits were released in response to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times and other news media organizations.


Prosecutors said that Mr. Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks before the 2016 election because the truth would have embarrassed Mr. Trump and his campaign.


Earlier this month, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who oversaw Mr. Stone’s case, rejected his request for a new trial. Federal authorities are expected to order him to begin serving his sentence soon.


Mr. Stone’s explanations of his relationship with Mr. Assange have varied widely. Before the 2016 election, he first said he was in direct touch with Mr. Assange, then said he was communicating with him through an intermediary. Later, when those claims became a political liability for Mr. Trump, he said he was only bluffing.


“I have never met with, nor spoken to Julian Assange, either in person, by telephone or email or any other means,” he said on his website in April 2018. “Assange himself has repeatedly and publicly said the same thing.”


The June 2017 exchange of messages shows that Mr. Stone tried to reassure Mr. Assange that he would escape criminal prosecution. “With the trumped-up sexual assault charges dropped, I don’t know of any crime you need to be pardoned for,” he wrote. He was apparently referring to a decision by Swedish authorities to drop a sexual assault investigation that focused on Mr. Assange.


Mr. Assange replied: “Between CIA and DoJ they’re doing quite a lot. On the DoJ side that’s coming most strongly from those obsessed with taking down Trump trying to squeeze us into a deal.”


Six days later, Mr. Stone wrote: “I am doing everything possible to address the issues at the highest level of Government,” adding that he had to be circumspect because his communications were monitored.


The records also reveal that before the 2016 election, Mr. Stone created hundreds of fake Facebook accounts. One of his assistants told investigators that he created “a couple hundred” Facebook accounts for Mr. Stone and that aides helped Mr. Stone shape them to appear real.


Mr. Stone apparently wanted fake accounts so he could call greater attention to stolen emails, released by WikiLeaks, that proved damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Facebook requires users to provide their real names and information, but it is not a crime to create fake accounts


Kitty Bennett contributed research.


Sharon LaFraniere is an investigative reporter. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Donald Trump’s connections with Russia. @SharonLNYT

Apr 152020

The legislation, which rushed through the legislature in less than 48 hours, gives cabinet ministers new power to write de facto laws and create new penalties without the approval of the legislative assembly

As though following Machiavellian advice to never let a crisis go to waste, the Alberta government has quietly expanded its own powers under the Public Health Act. Bill 10, which was rushed through the legislature in less than 48 hours, gives cabinet ministers new powers to write de facto laws and create new penalties without the approval of the legislative assembly.

Before Bill 10 became law on April 2, Alberta’s Public Health Act already empowered politicians and bureaucrats to take property away from citizens and organizations, to force citizens to render aid, to conscript people to help deal with an emergency and to enter into any building or property without a warrant. The chief medical officer was already empowered to forcibly quarantine any person who is ill, or any person who is caring for a sick family member.

Before Bill 10, cabinet ministers were already empowered to suspend the operation of provincial laws, in whole or in part, once cabinet declared a public health emergency. But now, cabinet ministers have acquired the additional power of creating and implementing new orders and penalties, simply through ministerial order, without them being discussed, scrutinized, debated or approved by the legislative assembly of Alberta.

Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro David Bloom Photo

Bill 10 has also increased the maximum penalty for disobeying the Public Health Act from $2,000 to $100,000 for a first offence, and from $5,000 to $500,000 for a subsequent offence.

The only justification provided by Health Minister Tyler Shandro for these new powers was to “strengthen our ability to protect the health and safety of Albertans.” Why ministers need the power to write laws on the fly was not explained.

Without review or approval of the legislature, a minister can now create a new order requiring people to install tracking devices on their cellphones, and requiring them to register their phones with the government. Without any oversight, a minister can create an exclusive list of people who are legally permitted to go outside, or legally authorized to drive a vehicle, and impose a $1,000 fine on those who walk outside or drive “illegally” because they are not on the list. The health minister could unilaterally declare that all sick people must be forcibly removed from their homes, as the World Health Organization has suggested. And an order could be issued for mass vaccination, without any discussion or debate in the legislature.

Calgary police break up a group of kids playing basketball in northwest Calgary on April 8. Darren Makowichuk/Postmedia

Cabinet’s powers to suspend laws and create new laws without input or approval from the legislature will eventually come to an end, after the government decides that the public health emergency has ceased. The Public Health Act refers to a 30-day period for a public health emergency, but nothing in the legislation stops the cabinet from declaring another public health emergency the day after the first one expires. Practically speaking, the provincial cabinet, on the advice of the chief medical officer, could maintain a public health emergency for months or even years.

With courts currently closed, or highly restricted to criminal law and some family law matters, the usual checks and balances on our system of government are limited or non-existent. Thankfully, the ministers’ new ability to write laws and create new offences excludes the power to tax and spend, and newly created offences cannot have a retroactive effect.

However, Bill 10 is still an affront to the rule of law, one of Canada’s foundational principles. “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” are the first words in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rule of law means being governed by laws, not by the whims of a king or a cabinet minister.

During this pandemic, we should accept reasonable restrictions on our charter freedoms on a temporary basis, with defined time limits and clearly explained justifications. Yet Alberta’s legislation provides no assurance that the violations of our rights will be only temporary, and no specific justification for Bill 10 has been provided.

National Post

Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Apr 152020

By Robert F Kennedy Jr,  Chairperson, Children’s Health Defense

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.

“The most frightening [polio] epidemics

in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines

are all linked to vaccines.”

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

South African newspapers complained,

‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects, including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions, to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former senior economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, when Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO, he said  “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a TED Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population.” And, four years later, in 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine, which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

[Global public health officials] say

he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy

that good health only comes in a syringe.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines and is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on all American children – and adults.

© April 09, 2020, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.

Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Mar 272020


Do you remember when you sent me an e-mail that the Cdn Gov`t and the US Gov`t had signed an agreement that they would help each other by doing a troop exchange, if ever needed.  It was many years ago,  . . .  Anyway it could be what they are now considering… I would like to tell Trudeau to be careful re this past agreement . . .  


The Troop Exchange Agreement  (officially the “Civil Assistance Plan“) was signed on Valentine’s day, 2008:

  1. 2008-03-17 Troop Exchange Agreement: Information sent to the Government
  2. 2008-02-29 View from the USA,  Troop Exchange Agreement, Canada-USA:   (Newly posted, 2020-03-27)  Names the Canadian General at “NorthCom” – – “Northern Command”.  (South of the U.S. is “Southern Command”.  Southcom came up in reference to more recent U.S. displeasure with Ecuador.)
  3. 2008-02-27 Troop Exchange Agreement with U.S.: Brief History of Invasions + Letter-to-Editor
  4. 2008-03-03 Troop Exchange Agreement PLUS Naomi Wolf’s 10 Steps to Fascism
  5. 2008-06-19 “Canada First Defence Strategy” – serious.  The American military-industrial-government-university complex in Canada.

In 2008, my anxiety over the Troop Exchange Agreement (Feb) was heightened when the June ’08 Canada First Defence Strategy became known.

Mar 272020


“The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan…”

SOME AMERICANS ARE SAYING:  “New North American Army“.

From:  Pastor Chuck Baldwin



… It is modern moneychangers who bully and bribe our spineless and greedy politicians (from both parties) into passing so-called “free trade” deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, which have all but destroyed America’s manufacturing base and have put millions of American workers out of their jobs. It is the moneychangers who are the driving force behind the burgeoning North American Union, which sacrifices America’s national sovereignty and independence.

Over the weekend, Dr. Jerry Corsi reported that a new North American Army has been created, without the approval of Congress or any mention by the American media. In World Net Daily, Corsi reports,

“In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

“The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

“In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other’s borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.”

Corsi further writes,

“The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

“The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.”

For the most part, the American media is blind, mute, and dumb regarding any of the issues relating to the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The only notable media personality to give this matter any significant attention is CNN’s Lou Dobbs. Obviously, the same moneychangers who control Congress also largely control the mainstream media.

The last three American Presidents, too, have been willing pawns in the hands of the moneychangers. Remember, it was Bill Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole who collaborated to shove NAFTA down our throats.

It was Bush 41 who first publicly promoted a “New World Order.” But it has been George W. Bush who has done more to appease the globalist plans of the moneychangers than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

G.W. Bush has used the rubric of “the war on terrorism” to dismantle not only the personal liberties of the American people (most notably with his Gestapo-like Patriot Act), but also the constitutional principles of national sovereignty and independence. For example, back in 2006, G.W. Bush eviscerated one of America’s most sacred doctrines protecting liberty and independence: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which disallowed U.S. military troops from being used against U.S. citizens. (Of course, this did not stop Bill Clinton and Janet Reno from using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens at Waco, Texas. And thanks to G.W. Bush, the crime was permanently covered up.)

The expunging of Posse Comitatus becomes even more jeopardous when one considers the current merger of U.S. and Canadian military forces. Dr. Corsi explains:

“In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered US NORTHCOM involvement.

“In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.”

See Jerry Corsi’s complete report.

Are readers getting this? George W. Bush, on his own signature, with no approval from Congress and no input from the American people, has seized unlimited power for the Presidency; he has dismantled the constitutional protections of the American people; he has ignored the courts; he has begun creating the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, including the merger of the U.S. and Canadian militaries; and he has refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, thus facilitating a borderless North America. And all of this has been done at the behest of David Rockefeller and his cabal of moneychangers at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

When Jesus saw the moneychangers in the Temple, He drove them off with violence. Yet, today’s pastors and Christians cannot even seem to see what these same moneychangers are doing to America. They support candidates simply because they have an “R” behind their names, vainly imagining that these candidates are somehow better than the ones with a “D” behind their names. The truth is, however, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are as beholden to the moneychangers as are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Why can’t Christians see this? Why are they so blind?

The one man who made it through the Republican Presidential primaries who was not only not beholden to the moneychangers, but who was vehemently opposed to them, was Congressman Ron Paul. But most pastors and leaders of the Religious Right, not seeing or understanding the evil being done by the moneychangers, not only did not support Ron Paul, but they actively supported (and continue to support) the moneychangers’ puppet candidates.

I’m sure if Jesus had taken time to sit down and dialogue with those First Century moneychangers, they could have come up with very nice, flowery speeches as to how they were doing the Jewish people a service; how they were patriotic Romans and/or pious Hebrews. But Jesus did not need to dialogue with them: He knew what they were. And He knew what He needed to do; and He did it.

What Jesus did is exactly what every pastor, Christian, conservative, and every other real American should do: rise up against these moneychangers and drive them out of power! But we cannot accomplish this until we see them for what they really are: power-mad extortionists who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of America’s freedom and independence. Do you think our fellow pastors and Christians will ever see it?

Mar 142020

by Paul Gregoire

Lawyer-Journalist Mark Davis

The line up of renowned Australian journalists on the stage at the Martin Place Amphitheatre on 24 February was impressive. Gathered for a rally, they included John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis, Quentin Dempster, Wendy Bacon, Andrew Fowler and Mark Davis.

They were there to speak in support of fellow journalist Julian Assange, on the first day of his appearance at London’s Woolwich Court, in proceedings that will decide whether the Australian citizen will be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges adding up to 175 years.

Not only is the Trump administration fixing to lock Assange up for the rest of his life, but it has recently revealed that it plans to do so under “special administrative measures”, which means he’ll be completely shut off from the outside world.

As each of the rally speakers addressed the crowd, there was a common sentiment expressed. And this was that there’s a grave injustice being perpetrated upon an Australian journalist of stature and there should be much greater public outcry so as to wake the government into action.

“He did redact”

Mark Davis described the publishing of over 700,000 classified US government documents leaked to Wikileaks by Chelsea Manning as “a great act”. And he ought to know, as he was present at the Bunker in London in 2010 as the first major release – the Afghan War Logs – was going to press.

Indeed, Mr Davis gave a speech at a Sydney Politics in the Pub last year, where he used his insider knowledge to refute many of the assertions that had been made about Assange’s level of professionalism during a recent Four Corners documentary.

And he debunked the myth that Julian didn’t redact any of the names that were detailed in the leaked files prior to release, which is “the slur” that Davis asserts is underpinning much of the reasons why Assange now finds himself in such a dangerous position.

The legal trade

Of course, Davis, a multi-award winning journalist, has been known to draw the ire of foreign politicians himself. Indeed, the former SBS Dateline presenter picked up a Gold Walkley for Blood Money, an investigation into Indonesian ministers funding militias in East Timor.

While today, Mr Davis works within the legal profession, where he has a focus on international matters and criminal law. And he’s about to represent long-term refugee and East Timor activist Stephen Langford in court.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Mr Davis about the great Australian silence around the current injustices being perpetrated upon a fellow citizen who made one of the greatest contributions to journalism in recent decades, and the myth that’s underpinning his plight.

The first days of Julian’s extradition trial took place last week. His legal team made some of the same points that you made at your Politics in the Pub session last year around leaked passwords.

The US countered this by asserting that proceedings should stick to the laws around extradition. And meanwhile, Julian was made to sit by himself away from his lawyers, behind a glass-enclosed dock. Mr Davis, what do you think about this extradition trial?

It’s pretty chilling. It’s the nature of the charges. I’m surprised it got this far. These charges are patently absurd. If these charges can be applied to Julian, it’s not being too dramatic to say, they can be applied to anyone.

These sorts of espionage laws in America have never been used. But, they’ve been dusted off to be applied to a man who did a great act of journalism, and made a great contribution to world knowledge.

He may have expected some impact – perhaps a travel ban on going to America. He would not have expected a whole new phase of legal precedent, where an intelligence agency of one country can reach into another and pluck someone out of it for a breach of their laws. It’s unparalleled.

If Julian had been arrested at JFK airport, okay, he might have come within American jurisdiction. But, now they can do it across jurisdictions for crimes that they themselves define. This is not murder. It is not paedophilia. It is not someone running from a bank heist.

There has never been anything like it. It is quite literally without precedent. And that’s what surprises me, that people have given it some air of normality, as if it’s a normal thing that this sort of procedure happened.

It is a radically dangerous action – clearly a radically dangerous action for Julian Assange. But, it’s a very dangerous action for all of us.

Israel may wish to reach into Belgium to pull someone out. Indonesia would love to reach into Melbourne or Sydney and pluck people out who they regard as having offended state law in some way.

As a precedent, it’s horrific. And it surprises me that there hasn’t been more reaction on that level, beyond the discomfort or mistreatment of Julian in this current hearing.

Last August, you gave a Politics in the Pub session, where you poked holes in some of the ideas in a recent Four Corners report on Assange. Broadly speaking, what do you think about the way he was portrayed?

When you make an effective slur against somebody – and it’s one that is compounded for many years until it builds – it starts setting into concrete. And the most effective slur against Julian has been that he failed to redact the documents.

In fact, it’s in the indictment. Of the 17 espionage charges against him, probably four or five of them refer to him failing to redact the documents. And essentially, they’re referring to the Afghan documents.

Now, I can say as a matter of fact – as an eyewitness observation – Julian did redact. He’s never been given credit for it. And it absolutely astounds me.

This casual slur is being repeated by journalists ad nauseum around the world, as well as by American officials. And no one has ever bothered to establish whether it’s true or not.

Here’s the force of a lie that a thousand journalists have just casually said. It’s not with any venom. They just google it, and there it is. It says he didn’t redact the documents, and they repeat it. It gets repeated on the ABC Australia, very casually.

Now, that casual lie is then accepted by American prosecutors. They’ve put that in the actual indictment. This is how dangerous it is to get something wrong in a case like this – and to repeat it.

It has been repeated so often, it leaves me speechless. I don’t know what else to say. That is absolutely wrong that he didn’t redact. He did redact.

And he did it alone. It wasn’t any of the journalists that were starting to gravitate around him on the eve of releasing that material.

So, that slur – which is the most common slur that journalists apply to say that he isn’t a journalist – is simply wrong.

At the recent Sydney Assange solidarity rally, you spoke in his support, alongside John Pilger, Mary Kostakidis and Quentin Dempster. Phillip Adams sent a message of support because he couldn’t be there.

So, we’re talking about some of the most respected Australian journalists standing in solidarity with Julian. However, this same level of support is not coming from most of the mainstream media. So, what’s happening here?

Peter Greste said he doesn’t see him as a journalist. It was a very cruel thing to say. And a very dangerous thing to say. But, a lot of journalists agreed with it.


The reason why they agree is the idea that he doesn’t redact – he just dumps material. That’s the essence of the journalistic snootiness towards Julian.

Now, he was inclined to publish large amounts of material, undoubtedly. But, it’s not true that he didn’t redact it.

In fact, he went through it. And this is how Wikileaks continues to do it. And I don’t know that from direct observation, but I do know from direct observation that he took out 10,000 names from the Afghan War Logs.

I know from second hand information that all subsequent releases were redacted, when it appeared that naming an individual might endanger their life. They did it, and yet they’re being criticised for it.

In that Four Corners piece, I remember Alan Rusbridger saying the difference between Assange and the other journalists was that Julian was extremely cavalier in his attitude to sources, whereas the Guardian journalists had a far more nuanced approach.

It was that single comment that probably popped my cork more than anything. It’s simply not true.

I think journalists hide behind that distinction: what distinguishes them from Julian Assange is that single difference, that he merely dumped material, while they showed nuance and craft in their work.

What can I say? I and many other journalists – many excellent journalists – disagree with that view. But, it would seem that we are not in the majority.

Mr Davis, you were there with Julian in the Bunker, when the Afghan War Logs were being released. There are those that assert he had no business in releasing them. But, you’ve described it as “a great act”. Why’s that?

It’s one of the most remarkable releases of information in a couple of generations – perhaps more. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, these were murderous – and in the case of Iraq essentially illegal – actions. And to reveal the full scale in its complete detail was an enormous service to the world.

It is what journalists do. We reveal that sort of information. We go looking for that sort of information. We hope to get a snippet or two, in order to gaze behind the curtain and show what’s really happening, especially in wars.

Well, Julian tore the curtain right off. And I certainly appreciate it.

You’ve spoken about the wider implications of Assange’s plight for us all. But, what will it mean for journalism specifically if Assange is sent away for the rest of his life?

Unquestionably, this is the single most ominous threat to journalism that we’ve seen. Much more so than any legislation that’s been passed in Australia that’s been a threat to journalism.

If you don’t want to see Julian as a journalist, you must see him as a publisher. And the fact that another country can now reach across borders and grab a journalist or a publisher and extradite them to their country to face their local intelligence agencies for whatever infringements they’ve dreamt up is frankly terrifying.

I worked almost entirely as a foreign correspondent. If I was breaking a big story, it was always nice to get back to Australia and think that I was okay.

If this becomes an international norm, then any number of those regimes that I reported on, could seek to extradite me, either from Australia, or if I was passing through London. Why not?

It’s a complete gamechanger.

And lastly, if Assange ends up in the US, he’ll appear in court on what you’ve described as “cooked charges”. Pilger said last week that there’s a chance for him to be brought back. But, the Australian government is silent on the matter. Mr Davis, what would you like to see happen here?

I’ve got a bit sympathy for the Australian government, to the degree that to have political bravery you need a bit of a groundswell or a bit of wind in your sails. And there’s not a lot of wind in their sails. It’s strangely quiet on all levels.

Of course, if the media is not pushing for it, I wouldn’t have great confidence in the local members starting to push for it. They will eventually. The sad truth is it will be when the decision is made, and he’s about to be shipped off. Then there will be a hue and cry.

But, I am more disappointed in Australian media and the commentariat, than I am in the Australian government at the moment.

There’s nothing in it for the Australian government. It’s just silence from their electorates. So, there is a lot of work to be done before we start getting too snarky about the Australian government.

But, clearly, they should be demanding that he not face these charges. They are against the spirit of Australian law, which is pro free speech and pro media.

I don’t think there’s any particular animosity from any government minister. No one cheering this on.

It’s more silence from both sides of politics, including the conservative side. No one is wanting this to happen. There is no great hatred for Julian, or being glad to support the Americans.

There’s actually silence, because they’re not too sure yet of what the Australian people think about it. I just think they’re biding their time.