I like John Denver’s music. Surprisingly, I first heard this song in 2024 February.
John Denver and Alexander Gradsky sing it near the end of “Christmas in Aspen, 1988”.
John told how he had gone to the Soviet Union, . . . sat with Gradsky and a bottle of vodka singing Beatle songs until 4AM. It was the only English that Gradsky knew. The two became good friends. Gradsky came to Aspen to perform “What are we making weapons for? with John in the Christmas special .
Let Us Begin (What Are We Making Weapons For?)
Song by John Denver
Lyrics
I am the son of a grassland farmer Western Oklahoma nineteen forty three I always felt grateful to live in the land of the free I gave up my father to South Korea The mind of my brother to Vietnam Now there’s a banker who says I must give up my land There are four generations of blood in this topsoil Four generations of love on this farm Before I give up I would gladly give up my right arm
What are we making weapons for Why keep on feeding the war machine We take it right out of the mouths of our babies Take it away from the hands of the poor Tell me, what are we making weapons for
I had a son and my son was a soldier He was so like my father, he was so much like me To be a good comrade was the best that he dreamed he could be He gave up his future to revolution His life to a battle that just can’t be won For this is not living, to live at the point of a gun I remember the nine hundred days of Leningrad The sound of the dying, the cut of the cold I remember the moments I prayed I would never grow old
What are we making weapons for Why keep on feeding the war machine We take it right out of the mouths of our babies Take it away from the hands of the poor Tell me, what are we making weapons for
For the first time in my life I feel like a prisoner A slave to the ways of the powers that be And I fear for my children, as I fear for the for the future I see Tell me how can it be we’re still fighting each other What does it take for a people to learn If our song is not sung as a chorus, we surely will burn
What are we making weapons for Why keep on feeding the war machine We take it right out of the mouths of our babies Take it away from the hands of the poor Tell me, what are we making weapons for
Have we forgotten All the lives that were given All the vows that were taken Saying never again Now for the first time This could be the last time If peace is our vision Let us begin
Have we forgotten All the lives that were given All the vows that were taken Saying never again, never again Now for the first time This could be the last time If peace is our vision
Free speech victory: Charges against nurse who opposed vaccine mandates defeated
REGINA, SK: The Justice Centre is pleased to announce that the College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan (CRNS) has ruled in favour of nurse Leah McInnes following an October and November 2023 disciplinary hearing. The Investigation Committee of the CRNS had charged Ms. McInnes with spreading “misinformation” because she had voiced her concerns about vaccine mandates. The outcome vindicates her right to professionally advocate for medical ethics and evidence-based health policy.
“This is a significant victory for free expression and democratic participation. Nurses, doctors, psychologists, teachers, lawyers, engineers and all Canadians who work in a regulated profession have the freedom to advocate for their beliefs and should not face threats from their own professional association or professional regulator,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.
Ms. McInnes had been charged by the CRNS’s Investigation Committee, which investigates and prosecutes professional misconduct complaints, for her social media advocacy and for protesting vaccine mandates. The Investigation Committee’s broad allegation against Ms. McInnes was that her advocacy, including her use of the common term “vaccine mandate,” amounted to “misinformation.”
Ms. McInnes is a mother of two and has been a Registered Nurse in Saskatchewan since 2013.
Ms. McInnes’s advocacy was measured and balanced. She had supported vaccines as an important tool in Covid-management efforts while also pointing to emerging scientific evidence regarding viral loads and transmission, which showed that Covid vaccines did not eliminate transmission. Ms. McInnes opposed vaccine mandates as a violation of basic ethical principles of autonomy and informed and voluntary consent of each and every patient.
When Covid vaccines were introduced and voluntarily received in the spring and summer of 2021, the question of vaccine mandates was publicly debated across Canada.
On June 30, 2021, the Saskatchewan Government indicated that it would not enforce a vaccine mandate because doing so would pose a “potential violation of health information privacy,” and, later, that it would “infringe on people’s personal rights.” The Saskatchewan Government also stated that a vaccine mandate for provincial employees was not being considered and, on September 10, 2021, rejected a proof-of-vaccination system, stating that mandates create “two classes of citizens based on… vaccination status,” and would be a “divisive path for a government to take.” Similar sentiments were echoed by Alberta’s Jason Kenney and Ontario’s Doug Ford, who claimed it would lead to a “split society.”
Guided by her conscience and professional ethics, notably, her respect for bodily autonomy and informed consent, Ms. McInnes vocally opposed vaccine mandates. She protested vaccine mandates by holding a sign that read, “RN against Mandates and Vax Passports.” According to the Investigation Committee of the College, this sign amounted to “misinformation” with an intention to deceive.
Shortly after Ms. McInnes’s advocacy began, the Saskatchewan Government changed course and imposed a vaccine mandate.
A fellow Registered Nurse filed a complaint, calling Ms. McInnes, “Leah aka anti-vaxxer.”
The complaint resulted in charges, including the charge that Ms. McInnes knowingly spread misinformation on the basis that, purportedly, no “vaccination mandates” had ever been implemented. It appeared that, according to the Investigation Committee, only a policy of “restrain and vaccinate” qualified as a “vaccine mandate.”
After an initial investigation, the Investigation Committee proposed an agreement that would have Ms. McInnes admit to professional misconduct, but she rejected this offer, choosing instead to stand up for her professional and Charter rights. The Investigation Committee charged her on March 28, 2023, and filed a Notice of Hearing, the details of which were later expanded after counsel for Ms. McInnes demanded clarity from the College as to what exactly the College alleged to be “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “misleading” information.
Ms. McInnes’s expert witness, former Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario Dr. Richard Schabas, confirmed that the term “vaccine mandate” had, in the medical profession, no special meaning beyond its meaning in everyday language. In all contexts, “vaccine mandate” refers to a requirement to either get injected or lose certain rights or freedoms.
“Ms. McInnes used the term ‘vaccine mandate’ just as nearly everyone else did in public discourse, including the Toronto Star, the CBC, CTV, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, CKOM, the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses, academia, Occupational Health and Safety, Saskatchewan Health Authority, the Saskatchewan NDP, and governments,” stated Andre Memauri, co-counsel for Ms. McInnes. “But the Investigation Committee nevertheless forced Ms. McInnes through this painful process, causing her needless grief,” continued Memauri.
The Investigation Committee also alleged that Ms. McInnes knowingly spread misinformation about Covid vaccines. Ms. McInnes had posted that vaccines did not provide sterilizing immunity, i.e., that vaccinated people could contract and transmit the virus. During the hearings that took place in 2023, experts, including the Investigation Committee’s own expert, testified that vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity, vindicating Ms. McInnes.
Co-counsel to Ms. McInnes, Glenn Blackett, says, “It’s chilling to recall that this vitally important fact, that the Covid vaccine did not provide sterilizing immunity, was broadly censored while Canadians were supposedly debating the wisdom of vaccine mandates. Poor information makes for poor decisions.”
Thankfully for Ms. McInnes and all Canadians who depend on an informed and ethical nursing profession, the Discipline Committee of the College accepted the evidence presented to them and found that Ms. McInnes had, in no way, misinformed the public.
Mr. Blackett continued, “This is a hugely important decision, not just for Ms. McInnes, who embodies the ‘moral courage’ Canadians should expect of all health professionals. It is perhaps most important for upholding a nurse’s right to voice ethical and scientific dissent and to participate in democratic discourse. The importance of professional freedom of speech and conscience can hardly be overstated. Science, ethics and democracy simply do not operate without freedom to think and speak. If you can’t trust a professional, be it a nurse, doctor or lawyer, to tell you what they think is true, you can’t trust them at all.”
As for Ms. McInnes, she sees this as a victory for free speech in the medical community which will only lead to better outcomes. “I very much value the right of my colleagues to express opinions different than mine and support them in their endeavours to seek change in healthcare and government policy they perceive to be in the public interest. I’m grateful that the CRNS Discipline Committee recognized my right to do the same, as it’s only in the collection of our opinions that the public truly benefits,” she stated.
After hearings and submissions in October and November 2023, the College’s Discipline Committee published their decision on January 12, 2024, dismissing all charges against Ms. McInnes. In their decision, the Discipline Committee stated that the case against Ms. McInnes should not have even proceeded to a hearing.
Lawyers on behalf of Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants argue that the $290 million class action against them is designed to silence their expression–expression the public had an interest in hearing [Image by Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images]
OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre announces that lawyers representing Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and other defendants against a class-action lawsuit brought by Zexi Li and other Ottawa residents will be in court this Thursday, December 14, 2023. Tamara Lich and the other defendants have filed an application to dismiss Zexi Li’s $290 million class action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)–a lawsuit designed to silence the expression of peaceful protesters.
In February 2022, Ottawa residents Zexi Li and Geoffrey Delaney, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local union commenced a $290 million class-action lawsuit against Chris Barber, Tamara Lich, and other Freedom Convoy participants, seeking damages against peaceful protesters for allegedly causing a nuisance. This lawsuit also seeks damages from citizens who donated to the peaceful protest.
Anti-SLAPP legislation serves to protect defendants against “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPP)–lawsuits designed to silence a defendant’s freedom of expression through threats of damages or costs. Anti-SLAPP motions are designed to end such lawsuits and are available to a defendant in any proceeding against them. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, the defendant must demonstrate that the proceeding against them arises from their expression that “relates to a matter of public interest.” If the defendant can demonstrate that their expression does relate to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that their lawsuit has “substantial merit” and that the defendant has no valid defence. A judge must then weigh the importance of the expression at stake against the importance of the plaintiff’s allegations of harm.
Lawyers in the Justice Centre network argue that the proceedings against Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and others do, in fact, arise from their expression. Donating to and participating in the Freedom Convoy amounted to an expression of support for the protest, and of disagreement with the Government of Canada’s response to Covid–matters of public interest. Further, lawyers argue that Zexi Li’s class-action lawsuit contains factual and legal weaknesses; it is not obvious that the proceeding against the defendants has “substantial merit.” Finally, lawyers argue that the defendants do have valid defences and that the value of the expression at issue outweighs the allegations of nuisance against them.
On Thursday, December 14, 2023, the parties will proceed to oral argument at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the plaintiffs’ entire class-action lawsuit is, in fact, a SLAPP action disguised as a nuisance claim and that the lawsuit is merely intended to punish the defendants for participating in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest. If successful, all or part of the class-action lawsuit will be dismissed.
Lawyer James Manson stated, “Zexi Li’s lawsuit engages the very purpose that ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation was designed to address: an attempt to silence peaceful expression, and the right of defendants to participate in public debate.”
John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre, stated “The fundamental Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly must be vigorously protected and defended, whether they are attacked directly by government or indirectly through a misguided civil action.”
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/Have you seen it? It’s a bit of a bombshell. Hallelujah! But it won’t achieve its potential without us pushing it out, hard.
In addition to listening to the PRESS CONFERENCE (at the bottom of https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/), I listened to the testimony of Shawn Buckley. It’s a fuse in the powder keg – – covid vaccines “Not Safe and Not Effective”.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Nov 2023. More, NCI:
Rodney Palmer spoke to the crowd on Nov 18th, Calgary, Rebel News event. Impressive presentation. I wanted to hear more from this retired journalist.
As serendipity would have it, Mr. Palmer stayed at the same hotel as myself. I ran into him as he was leaving to catch a flight.
Rodney’s “life changed” after his testimony to the NCI was uploaded and went viral. His expertise is in great demand as a speaker and consultant.
Rodney Palmer is an award-winning journalist who has worked for 20 years as a foreign correspondent for CTV news and investigative reporter for CBC Radio & Television in Canada and abroad. He was the CTV News Foreign Correspondent and Bureau Chief in India, China, and the Middle East
Rodney’s explosive testimony during the NCI Toronto hearing on day 1 provided evidence as to how CBC in particular is not conducting newsgathering, they are focusing on propaganda.
I listened to his NCI testimony. Palmer is a professional. His experience is valuable. Thanks to someone on the internet: I would say the following paragraph is accurate, adding that Rodney Palmer “tells” of instances using pictures captured at the time. I recognize some of the pictures from live coverage of the Freedom Convoy.
Mr. Rodney Palmer reports of how he was in Beijing when SARS broke out and how COVID was dealt with very differently. In chronological order, the systematic propaganda inflicted on Canadians by the CBC, regarding the safety of vaccines. He tells of many instances of the CBC journalists and newscasters lying to the public on their various broadcasts of news and other shows.
From the brief one-on-one encounter I (Sandra) had with Rodney Palmer, I would say that his experience as a foreign correspondent helped equip him to understand the current dangerous state of governance in Canada. Rodney and others like him who understand have jumped in and are tireless. They are urgent soldiers.
They need us to play our role: TALK! tell others. We are not going to get through this any other way.
I spoke with a 40-year-old Somalian man who was a child during the Civil War in Somalia. He knew exactly the problem with staying in our silos: Too many second and third generation Canadians are comfortable. They have never experienced or don’t know a family history of living under tyranny, let alone in poverty. Many are poorly educated about Governance. The Freedom Convoy brought people from all ethnicities together in unified purpose. People who know and understand the value and fragility of freedom. To me, Freedom is a sacred gift to be studied, cherished and protected by the community.
From a friend regarding Rodney Palmer:
This is extraordinary information everyone needs to see!
National Citizens Inquiry [into Canada’s response into Covid-19]
“You have to be able to face the truth, and that’s the first thing we need to do is we need to tell the truth. People who think–who are suspicious or cynical about what’s happening, they haven’t watched the testimonies.”
Rodney Palmer, Former News Journalist: “The CBC is a public news entity. We pay for it. They broadcast on the public airwaves, and we trust them to tell the truth, because they’ve done it for 50 or 60 years…The government rollout of the vaccines was impossible without the collaboration of the CBC…And in a moment of exception, you could say, “Okay, we’re going to let the CBC be the public health system right now, but the emergency’s over, and the exception still exists…Bad journalism is incompetence, but propaganda is a betrayal, and that’s what CBC’s done. It’s betrayed us all.”
= = = = = = = = =
(Sandra): With many thanks to my friend Lizzy. Rodney Palmer’s presentation to the NCI:
The Corruption of Canada’s CBC: Covid-19 Reporting under the Trudeau Government
Trust in the CBC is on the ropes – an elected oversight board is needed
Apr 26, 2023
1. Introduction and Background
2. Testimony from Former CBC Journalists:
a. Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid-19 reporting influenced by US disinformation agency, First Draft
b. Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid-19 reporting was guided by the Trusted News Initiative
c. Rodney Palmer: CBC reporting on “Anti-vaxxers”
d. Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid reporting on Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine
e. Former CBC Fifth Estate anchor Trish Wood Podcast with Rodney Palmer
f. Two other former CBC journalists resign in protest against the superficial controlled agenda of their once beloved institution
3. Crisis: Too Many Canadians Want the CBC De-funded
4. How the CBC is Administered and Funded
5. Fixing the CBC
Introduction and Background
(This would be Lizzy speaking. I don’t know how much of the following is her research. She is a dedicated researcher and good at it.): In early April, 2023, I witnessed testimony from Rodney Palmer,[1] a former CBC journalist to the National Citizens Inquiry on Canada’s Covid-19 response.[2]
This in-depth testimony shocked me to the core. I marvelled, realizing that this disturbing evidence will rewrite the history of Canada’s Covid-19 response for years to come. Something serious had changed at the CBC.
To start with some background, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, founded in 1936, is a crown corporation that currently reports to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Canada’s Liberal Government. Its CEO, Canadian-born Catherine Tait, who is married to an American living in NYC, [3] and who illegally contributed[4] to Hilary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign,[5] was appointed on April, 3, 2018 to lead the CBC into the digital age.[6][7]
On September 9, 2019, the CBC under Ms. Tait joined the Trusted News Charter.
“The Trusted News Charter is a BBC-led initiative to strengthen measures to protect audiences from disinformation. The Charter is the result of the June 2019 Trusted News Summit and includes a commitment to collaborate on source authentication, civic information, media education, and other responses to disinformation. Other partners just announced include Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, AFP, Reuters, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and the European Broadcasting Union.”[8]
Said Tait, “Disinformation is a global challenge. We need global solutions. Joining the Trusted News Charter is an important part of our ongoing work to ensure Canadians have access to trusted sources of news and information.”[9]
The following day, September 10, 2019, with Catherine Tait as its chair, [10] the Global Task Force for Public Media was formed to develop a consensus and “single strong voice” around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide.[11] But as Palmer points out, his own job with CBC for a decade was:
“to elevate the voices of Canadians on Canadian stories, to unite our vast country, and make us all feel as one…This is a bizarre conglomerate of public broadcasters…who all have national mandates like the CBC to unite their own people.”
He added – significantly – that the public broadcasters cannot be easily bought, because they have no advertisers, “so something else was done here.”
When the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 pandemic on March, 11, 2020, the Trusted News Charter, now called the Trusted News Initiative, had added the American disinformation agency, First Draft:
“Starting today, partners in the Trusted News Initiative will alert each other to disinformation about coronavirus, including ‘imposter content’ purporting to come from trusted sources. Such content will be reviewed promptly to ensure that disinformation is not republished…The Trusted News Initiative partners are: BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft, AFP, Reuters, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), The Hindu, First Draft, and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.”[12]
Interestingly, another disinformation organization, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) had unveiled the Journalism Trust Initiative in Paris on April 3, 2018, the same day that Catherine Tait was appointed CEO of the CBC:
“An innovative media self-regulatory initiative designed to combat disinformation online – called the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) – was launched today by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and its partners Agence France Presse (AFP), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the Global Editors Network (GEN).”[13]
Throughout her tenure, Ms. Tait (who had been living in the United States) has been controversial, if not naïve about her CBC function. Traditionally, Canadian crown corporation CEOs never enter partisan politics, a role that Ms. Tait failed to understand by entering a dispute with the Conservative Party of Canada’s Opposition Leader, Pierre Poilievre in February, 2023.[14]
CEO Catherine Tait (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2023/cbc-president-catherine-tait-is-out-of-her-lane/)
Testimony From Former CBC Journalists
a) Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid-19 policy influenced by US disinformation agency, First Draft
Rodney Palmer is an award-winning Canadian journalist who worked for 20 years as a foreign correspondent for CTV news, and as a producer and investigative reporter for CBC Radio & Television in Canada and abroad. He was also a general assignment reporter for the Globe and Mail, and a daily news reporter for the Vancouver Sun.
Palmer was also the CTV News Foreign Correspondent and Bureau Chief in India, Israel, and China – and was in China when SARS-Cov-1 broke out in 2002. He was in Beijing when SARS-Cov-2 hit the airwaves in 2020.[15]
I lived in Beijing and worked for CTV News every day and that was when the SARS epidemic broke out, so I followed it extremely carefully. I went to weekly briefings with the World Health Organization, and with the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
I had experience with epidemics and pandemics when COVID started, and I started noticing that it was extremely different. When they shut down Wuhan I knew that it was very, very different. This was something that had not occurred before.
I started noticing something different was happening at the CBC. The CBC is a public entity. We pay for it. It broadcasts on the public airwaves. And we expect them to tell us the truth because they’ve done that for fifty or sixty years.
I noticed something very different about a couple weeks into the emergency. There was a story on The National by Adrienne Arsenault, one of the greatest broadcasters we have – a national treasure…On April 4, 2020, I saw a piece where she’s looking at her phone and she says, “what do you do if somebody sends you a text, say your father, and he thinks the virus was manufactured by China?”
Then she went to an expert guest who said, “don’t embarrass your father, you’ll just push him away. You’ve got to bring him in, kind of convince him.”
The expert witness was from an organization called First Draft, and she simply says they’re a non-profit that helps people navigate misinformation in the media.
Looking into US-based First Draft, Palmer discovered that CBC’s Marketplace had a First Draft story about anti-vaccination websites and how they make their money – and realized that “this First Draft group is now feeding the CBC their stories.”
(Myself, looking yet further into First Draft, I discovered that in June 2022 it moved its disinformation mission to the Brown University School of Public Health, which operates under the deanship of Dr. Ashish Jha.[17]
Ashish Jha is a notorious pharma-friendly media darling who publicly scorned the 2020 Senate testimony of three prominent physicians reporting the medical literature on early Covid treatments including hydroxychloroquine. Jha’s New York Times op-ed rampage was titled “The Snake-Oil Salesmen of the Senate.”[18] By April, 2023, Jha, on temporary assignment to the White House as its Covid-19 response coordinator, was still inflicting the Covid vaccine boosters upon America’s youth.[19])
Back to Palmer pursuing the CBC’s treatment of any father who might think Covid was a lab leak:
FBI chief, Christopher Wray says the China lab leak was most likely. The quote is, “The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident.”
So the CBC had no evidence that it wasn’t. But they wanted you to believe that it wasn’t.
There’s a definition in the Oxford dictionary of “newsgathering,” which is “the process of doing research on news items, especially ones that will be broadcast on television or printed in a newspaper.” Now how much research was done by the CBC to determine ten days after the emergency that it didn’t happen in a lab?
Another definition here is “propaganda,” which is “Persuasive mass communication that filters and frames the issues of the day in a way that strongly favours particular interests, usually those of a government or a corporation. Also, the intentional manipulation of public opinion through lies and half-truths, and the selective retelling of history.” This is what was going on in that piece. That’s why it felt so wrong to me, because there was no news involved. There was only propaganda.
What the Washington Post did with its lab leak story, ten days after the CBC said it wasn’t from the lab, was newsgathering. It was investigative reporting. What the CBC did, when it said don’t trust your family if it thinks it came from a lab, was propaganda.
In other words, trust the hidden agencies guiding our tax-supported CBC – even over your own father.
In another CBC propaganda example cited by Palmer, Marilyn Gladu, a Conservative Member of Parliament, was one of 15-30 MP’s who opposed vaccination as a requirement for representing their constituencies in Parliament. CBC’s Katie Simpson (who Palmer has long admired) “beat the hell out of Gladu” on the air for risking public safety by “giving support to the anti-vaxxers.”
Palmer concludes that in framing her guest on the show – and in fact all unvaccinated Canadians – as “dangers to public safety,” Katie Simpson “had no evidence and still has no evidence that anyone who isn’t vaccinated is more likely to spread COVID than a vaccinated person. This was not newsgathering. She was practising propaganda.”[20]
More anti-vax propaganda is revealed in a Palmer slide – showing CBC’s shallow, disrespectful attitude towards public knowledge and intelligence. CBC suppressed one side of the story, because it wasn’t newsgathering; it was propaganda.
There is only one CBC perspective below on people who are allegedly “hesitant” (too weak and indecisive) to take the untested mRNA vaccines – rather than having come to a firm decision based on their own responsible research:
b) Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid-19 policy was guided by the Trusted News Initiative
Two weeks after WHO announced the Covid-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020, Canada’s CBC reported that the Trusted News Initiative had announced plans “to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation.”
The TNI then agreed to engage with a new verification technology called Project Origin, led by a coalition of the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft and The New York Times – with an eerie mandate to identify non-authorized news stories for suppression.
In July, 2020, Eric Horvitz, Chief Scientific Officer for the compliant Microsoft, remarked about authorizing the news: “We’ve forged a close relationship with the BBC and other partners on Project Origin, aimed at methods and standards for end-to-end authentication of news and information.”[21]
More dangerously fascist-leaning, Microsoft announced in February, 2021 that they “and the BBC have teamed up with Adobe, Arm, Intel and Truepic to create the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). The C2PA is a standards-setting body that will develop an end-to-end open standard and technical specifications on content provenance and authentication. The standards will draw from two implementation efforts: Project Origin’s (Origin) efforts on provenance for news publishing and the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), which focuses on digital content attribution.”[22]
The CBC throughout was placing a strong emphasis on itself as a trusted news source.
Two years later, reports Mr. Palmer, in January 2023, Catherine Tait was still giving speeches on trusting the CBC, including one at Simon Fraser University.
“The first word out of her mouth was ‘trust’. ‘Trust seems to be in short supply.’ The next phrase is: ‘Disinformation, conspiracy theories, YouTube rabbit hole.’ This is the trusted news initiative mantra…”[23]
On March 29, 2021, adds Palmer, well-known CBC Toronto Radio host Matt Galloway had interviewed an expert guest from the Center for Countering Digital Hate. The expert declared that “people who are recommending intravenous Vitamin C and hydrogen peroxide nebulization are hate” – and claimed that this was “literally inhaling bleach.”
“He lied that it was inhaling bleach,” said Palmer. Why did Matt Galloway let this man lie on the radio?
The “expert” added, “anti-vaccine misinformation is hate.” He then went on CBC’s “we’ve got your back” Marketplace, who took hate to the next level of censorship:
Why are social media comments the business of CBC Marketplace, who like the Prime Minister, “has got our backs”? What is the “something else” that is going on?
c) Rodney Palmer: CBC Policy on “anti-vaxxers”
Palmer reports that the CBC, very successfully, has promoted a new group of Canadians and fomented hate against them. But the CBC does not tell us who these “anti-vaxxers” are, or what they believe. “Do they need to have mental correction? Psychological retraining?”
d) Rodney Palmer: CBC Covid-19 Policy on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine
Perhaps the worst crime of the Covid-19 event was the suppression of cheap, highly proven early treatments, which were well understood back in 2020-21 – via the most downloaded article in the history of the American Journal of Medicine.[24]
In an act of unconscionable propaganda, the CBC lied about this – one reason why many Canadians would now like to see it de-funded.
Mr. Palmer’s two slides say it all:
Importantly, Ivermectin is particularly effective against viruses:
And yet the CBC has been persecuting Canadian physicians such as Daniel Nagase and Charles Hoffe for prescribing Ivermectin, which is on the WHO List of Essential Medicines for human beings (lower right corner).
e) Former CBC Fifth Estate anchor Trish Wood Podcast with Rodney Palmer
When Trish Wood heard the Rodney Palmer testimony, she tweeted:
“As a former CBC journalist, watching Rodney Palmer’s evidence about the corp’s fall into absolute corruption was heartbreaking. I knew every word was true but he was so eloquent – I was broken-hearted about my old profession, yet again. Bravo to the #NCI @Inquiry_Canada.”[25]
Ms. Wood also conducted a fascinating follow-up 90-minute podcast with Mr. Palmer, where both lament the tragic lapse in standards currently plaguing the CBC.[26]
Journalist Trish Wood, former anchor CBC “Fifth Estate”
This podcast is exceptional — probably historic – and includes a third journalist, Marianne Klowak, who also resigned from the CBC because of its lying. They leave no stone unturned showing how CBC Covid-19 reports cheated by following orders from above.
Most dramatic was their bombshell proof (in hour 2) that the Nazi flag unfurled during the Ottawa Freedom convoy was digitally traced back to a Liberal – who had thus enabled Prime Minister Trudeau to equate the truckers[27] with Nazis, and to refuse to talk to them.
(A 23-minute condensed version of Rodney Palmer’s NCI propaganda testimony provides special impact on the corrupt CBC under the Trudeau government):
f. Two career CBC journalists resign in protest against the superficial agenda of their once beloved institution
Marianne Klowak had a long career at CBC, in radio, TV and digital. It was a job she loved with colleagues she respected. But then Covid-19 hit and it seemed the journalistic rules changed overnight. After a fruitless struggle to report events she thought important, Marianne resigned.[28]
Resigning CBC journalist Marianne Klowak
From the Western Standard:
Winnipeg-born Klowak, a 32-year general reporter with the CBC and former teacher, said her “last year and a half…was a real fight” to get the truth out during the pandemic.
“It was no longer a place I recognized and I tried to push through a number of stories that were censored and cancelled,” she said.
Klowak said she felt like the CBC was “no longer committed to truth and honesty” and said the culture she was seeing develop was “disturbing.”
She said it was in June 2021 when she started to notice a “real change” with the public broadcaster during the pandemic.
“What I was seeing unfold at the CBC was you were very quickly shutting down one side of the debate, and for me that was alarming,” she said, pointing to news at the time surfacing out of Israel linking the vaccines to heart inflammation.[29]
Veteran CBC radio and CBC producer Tara Henley perhaps says it best. In a January 2022 editorial to the National Post, titled “Why I quite the CBC,” Henley explains: “People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported.” [30]
She adds:
When I started at the national public broadcaster in 2013, the network produced some of the best journalism in the country. By the time I resigned last month, it embodied some of the worst trends in mainstream media.
Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted.
It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change.
To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.
It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions. It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.[31]
Could this US Ivy League bias exist because the Trudeau-appointed Catherine Tait was living with her American husband in New York City until July, 2018 (and needed to become a Canadian resident to work legally as CBC’s CEO?)
Henley continues:
To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others.
To work at the CBC is to submit to job interviews that are not about qualifications or experience — but instead demand the parroting of orthodoxies, the demonstration of fealty to dogma.
It is to become less adversarial to government and corporations and more hostile to ordinary people…
It is to endlessly document microaggressions but pay little attention to evictions; to spotlight company’s political platitudes but have little interest in wages or working conditions. It is to allow sweeping societal changes like lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures to roll out — with little debate.
It is to consent to the Idea that a growing list of subjects are off the table, that dialogue itself can be harmful. That the big issues of our time are all already settled.
It is to capitulate to certainty, to shut down critical thinking, to stamp out curiosity. To keep one’s mouth shut, to not ask questions, to not rock the boat.[32]
So in 2013, the CBC was still producing some of the best journalism in the country?
It now appears that after the Trudeau government came to power in October 2015, and more particularly since Covid-19 arrived in early 2020, the CBC’s content has sunk into a pap diet of diversions and distractions from the truth.
Much of the Canadian public, not about to be dumbed-down, has voted with its feet.[33]
3. Crisis: Too Many Canadians Want the CBC De-funded
The CBC’s editorial independence was enshrined under Canada’s Broadcasting Act in 1936. CBC and Radio-Canada’s mandate was, in part, to “inform, enlighten and entertain; to contribute to the development of a shared national consciousness and identity.”
However:
A national survey of 1,200 people conducted in April 2023 by Abacus Data suggested that 40 per cent of adult Canadians agreed that the CBC was propaganda on behalf of the federal government. The majority holding that view identified themselves as Conservative voters.
Forty-five per cent of respondents said they thought the CBC should be shut down to save taxpayer money, while the rest agreed with the statement: “I value the CBC and want it maintained.” The figures matched results of an earlier survey in September 2022, by Mainstreet Research, which found that 46 per cent of Canadians wanted to see the CBC defunded.[34]
An Ipsos-Reid poll released back on May 14, 2004 had shown that Canadians felt the CBC was doing a good job protecting Canadian culture and identity, and 85% of voters would support political parties that fostered domestic ownership of broadcasting.[35]
A Nanos Research poll from August 2014 conducted for Asper Media (National Post, Financial Post) showed 41% of Canadians wanted funding increased, 46% wanted it maintained at current levels, and only 10% wanted to see it cut.[36]
A year later the Trudeau government was elected.
CBC has received $1.2 billion annually from the federal government since fiscal year 2018. Government funding increased to almost $1.4 billion for 2020-2021 to cover ‘retroactive salary inflation’ and potential issues arising from the pandemic. It returned to $1.2 billion the following year.[37]
In a 2020 study, “on a per-capita basis the CBC received $33, while the average for the 20 countries covered in the study was $88 — more than two and a half times greater. Funding for public broadcasting in the U.K. was $104 per capita, for Sweden $120 and for Germany $149.” The Trudeau government has done nothing to keep its 2015 election campaign to reverse the Mulroney, Chrétien, and Harper government cuts.[38]
How the CBC is Administered and Funded
The CBC is a Crown corporation owned and funded by the Government of Canada. It is accountable to Parliament through the minister responsible. The minister responsible, with approval of the federal cabinet, appoints the corporation’s board of directors, and the cabinet appoints the CEO and determines the rate of pay. The board and Members of Parliament have some input into the appointment of CEOs and board chairs, but the government makes the ultimate decision. The government can intervene in the management of a Crown corporation by having the minister responsible issue a directive to the board of directors ordering them to take a specific action.[39]
Fixing the CBC
If the resigning journalists are correct, we are not likely to find out how to fix the CBC from the CBC itself.
Mr. Palmer noted above that because CBC Radio does not have advertising, “something else is being done here” between the public media agencies of several countries – hinting that the international quest for a “single strong voice” against misinformation, pursued by the Global Task Force for Public Media under chairperson Catherine Tait, is overshadowing the traditional editorially-independent CBC role “of elevating the voices of Canadians on Canadian stories, to unite our vast country, and make us all feel as one.”
This “something else” — to standardize one-voice media — is what Canadians need to understand before their long-beloved public broadcaster is dismantled by 46% popular demand.
Ms. Henley said that to work at the CBC now “is to become less adversarial to government and corporations and more hostile to ordinary people.”
That it is “to allow sweeping societal changes like lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures to roll out — with little debate.”
Judging by the composition of the 12-member Liberal Cabinet-appointed board of directors – of whom three have truth and reconciliation backgrounds; three have corporate media backgrounds; three have digital technology expertise; and only three have cultural backgrounds – this is not surprising.[40]
CBC’s board of directors does not choose the CBC president. And the board cannot dismiss the president. The prime minister chooses the president. This is not a new development; it goes back to 1936. In contrast, the director-general of the BBC is chosen by the BBC’s trustees, and those trustees can fire their director-general.[41]
It seems clear from the above that the CBC has been captured, not only by identity politics, but by combined government and corporate agendas, almost certainly influenced by the private-public World Economic Forum and its proud young national graduates – the WEF’s “young global leaders” – with Justin Trudeau among them.
Can the CBC still perform as a national unifying force?
The CBC’s legislated role “to contribute to the development of a shared national consciousness and identity” is being destroyed by identity-politics. This is partly a result of the rise of post-modernism in communication theory and journalism schools.
Post-modernism is a late twentieth-century form of subjectivism that makes it impossible to have serious rational discussions and work towards common ground. This trend is partly what is preventing the CBC from performing as a national unifying force.
Some steps that may be taken:
1. CBC policy-makers need to acknowledge that they are failing in their shared-identity mandate and commit to doing better
2. CBC accountability for violating journalistic ethics and standards should be enforced by a new, provincially-elected citizen oversight board
3. Governments have appointed poor CBC leaders over recent years. Leaders need to be chosen with elected citizen oversight according to the priorities of its legislated mandate.
4. Identity politics has taken a divisive turn. Cultural pluralism should be a point of pride for all Canadians, not a cudgel to use against select groups. (This may require a public inquiry in which everyone is heard.)
5. The societal problem of post-modernism should be addressed in serious discussions, working towards common ground for all Canadians.[42]
Conclusion
The online-digital role of CBC’s US-import Catherine Tait will expire in July of 2023. Tait has appointed 6 members of her 7-member executive team and all but one came from the corporate world. (Marco Dubé is the only journalist who rose through the CBC ranks.)[43]
Indeed, Tait has filled the CBC with a new breed of journalists, causing some of the ethically best and brightest to resign. The CBC as we have known it for decades is in a state of collapse.
As columnist Terry Glavin has put it:
In the decades following its inception, the whole point of the CBC was to provide an informative, welcoming, entertaining and unifying place on the airwaves outside the raucous cacophony of the American mass media. It was to be a place where Canadians could get to know one another and to know about their country. And it did a pretty good job of it.
But now, the CBC brass has rebranded the organization along lines that blend seamlessly with the faddish haute-bourgeois obsessions the Trudeau Liberals’ have drawn straight from the culture wars that have so enfeebled the United States.
Rather than provide a place where Canadians can have their own conversations, the CBC’s $436,000-a-year CEO Catherine Tait (and her whiter-than-white board of governors and her seven vice-presidents, ten directors-general, her $900,000-a-year “strategic intelligence department” and her 143 executive directors) joined forces with the Trudeau Liberals in a multi-year funding package to mainline those American toxins straight into the bloodstream of Canadian culture.
What’s new here is a weird sensibility that masquerades as “progressive” that’s a perfect fit with Trudeau’s self-professed determination to remodel Canada as a “post-national” country with “no core identity” and “no mainstream.” It’s a radical experiment born from the luxury of living under the American security umbrella and immense natural-resource wealth and the sacrifices of Canadians whose struggles it has become decidedly unfashionable to even remember.
What unites and binds the Trudeau Liberals with the CBC brass – and for that matter, with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and the Canada Council for the Arts, and so on – is a mutually-reinforcing ideational package. . . please don’t make me say “woke.” What the hell, I said it. You know what I mean.
What I mean is an epistemology that supplants and replaces systems of knowledge and truth-seeking with rigidly-enforced systems of belief and ideology that purport to be “progressive.” It’s a phenomenon that is fatally corrosive to the disciplines we’ve always relied upon, in conversations and arguments among and between people of the “left” and the “right,” to establish broad societal agreement about what constitutes the truth.[44]
In other words, what we have now is a case of post-modern irrationality.
And the polls are suggesting that it’s time for a complete overhaul.
If the CBC if it is to continue as a government-funded entity, a new legislated commitment must be made to the Canadian people.
The board of directors clearly needs to be reviewed.
A citizen oversight board with an elected representative from every province should be established to meet regularly at specified intervals, and to appoint future CBC boards of directors.
CBC funding has stagnated for decades. Its funding should be supplied by a television licence fee (like the BBC) and not be subject to the policy and content influences of advertising.
A proposal outlining the essential steps for a CBC overhaul, and a restoration of its 1985 per capita funding, should be submitted formally to the Canadian people for input – and then to Parliament for approval.
[1] I am grateful to Mr. Palmer for his excellent slides, some of which I have incorporated into this essay, with acknowledgments to him. (https://rumble.com/v2fs7u2-rodney-palmer-full-interview-day-1-toronto-national-citizens-inquiry.html).
[2] “A Citizen-Led Inquiry into Canada’s COVID-19 Response. Canada’s federal and provincial governments’ COVID-19 policies were unprecedented…These interventions into Canadians’ lives, our families, businesses, and communities were, and to great extent remain, significant. In particular, these interventions impacted the physical and mental health, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, jobs and livelihoods, and overall social and economic well-being of nearly all Canadians.
These circumstances demand a comprehensive, transparent, and objective national inquiry into the appropriateness and efficacy of these interventions, and to determine what lessons can be learned for the future. Such an inquiry cannot be commissioned or conducted impartially by our governments as it is their responses and actions to the COVID-19 which would be under investigation.
The National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) is a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that is completely independent from government.” (https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/).
[3] Jesse Brown, “The President of the CBC Lives In Brooklyn: She’s been back and forth throughout the pandemic,” Canadaland, 11 December 2020 (https://www.canadaland.com/the-president-of-the-cbc-lives-in-brooklyn/).
[4] “Under U.S. election law, it is illegal for someone who is not an American citizen to contribute to a U.S. election campaign.” Elizabeth Thompson, “Hundreds of Canadian residents contributing to U.S. candidates,” CBC News, 7 November 2016 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trump-clinton-u-s-election-1.3837993).
[5] “Filings with the United States’ Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that CBC CEO Catherine Tait donated to the presidential campaign of Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016….At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Tait’s own status as a Canadian citizen was also brought into question after the online outlet Canadaland published an article revealing how the CBC CEO owned a $5.4 million residence in Brooklyn, New York with her husband.
According to CBC, Tait was required to take a second residence in Canada in order to comply with the broadcaster’s requirements.”
[20] Lee Harding, “Ex-CBC journalist testifies broadcaster did propaganda, not newsgathering,” 6 April 2023 (https://www.westernstandard.news/news/ex-cbc-journalist-testifies-broadcaster-did-propaganda-not-newsgathering/article_ec81c9dc-d481-11ed-ac8e-93c1d6a543ce.html).
[22] Eric Horvitz, “A promising step forward on disinformation, Microsoft, 22 February 2021 (https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/02/22/deepfakes-disinformation-c2pa-origin-cai/).
[23] Rodney Palmer, “Propaganda VS Newsgathering at CBC and other media,” The Crazy Times, p. 5, 4 April 2023.
[30] Tara Henley, “Why I quite the CBC,” National Post, 3 January 2022 (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tara-henley-why-i-quit-the-cbc?__vfz=medium%3Dstandalone_content_recirculation_with_ads).
[33] Joanna Chiu and Steve McKinley, “Is CBC at a crossroads? Or are Twitter spat and Poilievre barbs just more of the same?” The Standard, 23 April 2023 (https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ts/news/canada/2023/04/23/is-cbc-at-a-crossroads-or-are-twitter-spat-and-poilievre-barbs-just-more-of-the-same.html).
[39] Pinned comment at “CBC editorial independence is a lie,” National Post, 13 April 2023 (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/cbc-editorial-independence-is-a-lie).
Below we have news from BRITISH COLUMBIA. Bless Drea Humphrey!
The focus on BILL 36 (AWARENESS of the Bill) brought doctors out in significant numbers. They are not afraid to speak up. Bless them, too!
– – – – – – – – – –
Critics of the Health Professions and Occupations Act believe that it will lead to the politicization of healthcare and grant the Minister of Health sweeping power over how health practitioners can provide care for their patients.
The Act, formerly called Bill 36, was passed in November of last year, despite members of the legislature never getting the chance to formally debate more than half of the bill’s over 600 sections.
Critics of the Health Professions and Occupations Act believe that it will lead to the politicization of healthcare and grant the Minister of Health sweeping power over how health practitioners can provide care for their patients.
Watch the full report to hear concerns about the Act from some of BC’s finest in healthcare, including Ukrainian-born Dr. Marina Sapozhnikov MD, who says the HPOA is reminiscent of her time under the rule of the Soviet Union.
Rebel News traveled by ferry to meet with these health professionals in Victoria after thousands of postcards from citizens calling for the Act to be repealed were submitted to the legislative assembly by the Conservative Party of BC.
If you appreciate that we are able to be your eyes and ears by bringing you important reports like this, please consider donating what you can here at www.RebelFieldReports.com to help us cover our expenses.
2023-11-29 B.C. Bonnie Henry named as defendant in class-action lawsuit over her role in COVID-19 vaccine mandates
NOTE: James Baldwin is the plaintiff in this class action, on behalf of public sector employees. Umar Sheikh from Victoria is the lawyer for the case. It’s confusing because there is another case that sounds the same – – #5 in the above list. I do not think that the two class action cases have been amalgamated, but I could be wrong.
A group representing unionized public service workers has announced a class-action lawsuit against the BC government over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Representative plaintiff Jason Baldwin, who was fired by the Ministry of Finance due to the mandate, launched the suit today on behalf of affected BC Public Service workers.
As well as the provincial government, the suit lists Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry as a defendant.
The suit demands general damages for misfeasance in public office, aggravated damages and punitive damages.
It has been backed by the non-profit BCPS Employees for Freedom Society (BCPSEF), which describes itself as a “diverse group of public servants who stand together for medical privacy and bodily autonomy.”
Photo credit: NowMedia/Colin Smith
Discussing the suit today, BCPSEF said the Province and Dr. Henry introduced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees in November 2021 that “was contrary to public service employees’ Charter rights.”
That mandate violated the “medical privacy and bodily autonomy of 38,000 BC public servants with its coercive and unjustifiable proof of COVID-19 vaccination mandate,” the group added.
BCPSEF said the requirement for workers to be vaccinated led to “untold suffering and harm to public servants and public services.”
The suit claims Dr. Henry committed misfeasance because she had “no basis in fact to justify the information, data and advice she provided and upon which the Province relied to develop its employee vaccination policy.”
It also accuses her of “wilfully or recklessly ignor[ing] known potential risks of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccination in providing advice to the Province.”
The lawsuit further claims that employees’ rights to freedom of association were violated by the Province and that “forced disclosure of private medical information violated common law and statutory privacy rights.”
Baldwin has retained the services of Umar Sheikh from Sheikh Law in Victoria.
The court must now determine if the suit meets the requirements for a class action.
If that determination is made, it will be certified as a class-action suit and can proceed.
Last month, a separate suit, also listing Dr. Henry and the Province as defendants, was filed by two plaintiffs representing fired healthcare workers.
Health professionals in the province are still required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to work, a policy BC United leader Kevin Falcon said is part of a “crusade” by the NDP government.
= = = = = = = = = = =
In addition, co-plaintiff Jedediah Ferguson, who worked at Cumberland Regional Hospital laundry since June 2015, also received a leave of absence before Interior Health fired her.
According to court documents filed on October 13, the plaintiffs tabled the action “on behalf of members of the class consisting of all unionized healthcare workers in British Columbia who have been subject to the COVID-19 vaccination status information and preventative measures order.”
It asserts the Henry undermined their contractual employment agreements when she issued the public health order on October 14, 2021.
The plaintiffs claim she “acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness” by continuing to enforce the order.
According to the order, “vaccination is safe, very effective, and the single most important preventive measure for health professionals […] to protect patients, residents and clients, and the health and personal care workforce, from […] COVID-19.”
The suit counters that claim, suggesting the COVID vaccine monographs are ‘misleading,’ while referencing the risk of sustaining an adverse side-effect from the jab, including blood clots. The plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged contract breach, “misfeasance” in public office, and the suit’s certification.
The province had 21 days to respond from the action’s filing, with no response reported as of writing.
Some of the “COUTTS” COURT CASES IN LETHBRIDGE AB, arising out of the FREEDOM CONVOY. Egregious.
Artur Pawlowski
Marco Huigenbos
“The Coutts 4” (Chris Carbert, Anthony Olienick, Jerry Morin, and Christopher Lysak)
Jaclyne Martin, the wife of Jerry Morin who is one of “The Coutts 4”
“Coutts” was happening at the same time as the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, at the Windsor border crossing, and in other locations in Canada. I joined the estimated 14 to 15 thousand who protested in Victoria, BC. The day was January 29, 2022. I would not have missed it for anything. It was an incredible day of joy and celebration with other Canadians. A man on a bench, taking in the happiness in the crowds of people said to me, “This is the Canada I remember!”
SENTENCING OF ARTUR PAWLOWSKI
July 26 – I told you Pawlowski was scheduled to be sentenced in Lethbridge, AB on August 9th.
Aug 09 – I was up and at the Court House 2 hours in advance, to ensure I’d have a seat in the Court Room. Which Court Room for the sentencing of Pawlowski?
I went through Security; and was directed to a large bulletin Board with many postings. I found a listing of various cases, but no Pawlowski; no names that started with “P”. I searched some other lists but they were for other things. No Pawlowski’s.
I exited the Court House to wait for the arrival of other people. And eventually went through Security a second time. Happily saying I was here for the sentencing of Pawlowski. Did anyone happen to know the Court Room Number? . . . silence.
Inside I went to the counter where there was a woman working behind a glass partition at a computer. Could she please look up the Pawlowski case and tell me the Court Room number? . . . No, I needed to go to the Bulletin Board. The day’s cases are listed there. . . . Yes, I have already done that. I can’t find Pawlowski listed. . . . You have to go to the Bulletin Board . . . You are working on a computer. Could you please enter the name Pawlowski? I’m sure your system can find the file. . . . well it seems that the Court House must have a very dumb computer – – I didn’t say so. What I did say is this: In a democracy trials are conducted in public. If you won’t tell me where the sentencing will be held, then the sentencing can not be open to me, the Public. This is the stuff of police states, tyrannies.
I exited the Court House again, to wait outside. A woman arrived who, like me, wished to witness the sentencing of Pawlowski. She is from Cranbrook, B.C., well informed. The conversation was stimulating.
Eventually I went to Security a third time. There was a line-up of people going in, but none for Pawlowski. I joked with the fellows working the Security line. Here I am, back again. I just need a small piece of information: does anyone happen to know in which Court Room Pawlowski is being sentenced? The fellow in front of me didn’t say anything. The fellow next down the line didn’t look at me, but he said loud enough to easily be heard: “the sentencing of Pawlowski was postponed until September 18th.” I heartily thanked him for the information.
PAWLOWSKI – – IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, SENT EARLIER
The Parliament of the European Union heard an appeal of Pawl ski’s situation.
After years of harassment by some police, prosecutors, judges, and jailers, THAT STARTED BEFORE COVID, the Alberta Court of Appeal last summer (July 2022) found Pawlowskinot guilty of a suite of charges that came up through the lower courts. An innocent man. Restitution to Pawlowski was ordered by the Appeal Court.
There were remaining charges related to the Coutts blockade. “Mischief”, deemed to be criminal, drawing up to ten years in jail if found guilty. To be processed in Provincial Court, Lethbridge. Everything started over again. In July 2023, the Judge found Pawlowski guilty.
Come to Lethbridge if you possibly can. . . . I am returning for the sentencing (Monday, Sept 18th) and other court proceedings the next day related to “Coutts”.
(I want to use accurate language. I’ll confirm this description when I’m in Lethbridge:)
The RCMP had acheck-pointat Milk River (a whistle stop before you get to Coutts. Thinly-populated country). The RCMP were checking people in the south-bound lane of a rural, 2-way road/highway to the U.S. border.
There was no “blockade” by the RCMP, or by the truckers at Coutts.
“The truckers” at Coutts, down the road from Milk River where the RCMP were situated, consisted of truckers, farmers with big machinery including trucks, and people who drove down from other parts of Alberta (Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, Fort MacLeod, etc).
The congregation of people at Coutts did not block any road/highway. There is plenty of parking at Coutts to accommodate potential line-ups of vehicles crossing the border. There’s little more than farmers’ fields adjacent to the road/highway between Milk River and Coutts. This is very flat country!
There are video’d scenes of lots of very large vehicles parked in orderly fashion in winter conditions; the local tavern, a community gathering place is close by. The atmosphere is similar to that in Ottawa at the same time: bonfires with people gathered round to warm themselves, the sharing of food, children chasing and having fun, lots of laughter. People connecting and helping each other, sharing stories, getting acquainted. Discussions taking place inside and outside the tavern.
The use of the Court and Jail system to silence citizens you don’t like has to be stopped. You get a fair trial. It’s not fair if you have to pay literally a million dollars in lawyer bills to get to an Appeal Court to establish your innocence. (Pawlowski could do that, but only because Canadians helped crowd-fund the legal bills.)
Then he starts over again in Lethbridge Provincial Court with charges of mischief, looking at potentially 10 years in jail. I don’t know how else to see it: Political Prisoners. Julian Assange comes to mind. (I posted an update on Assange at https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=27931)
“THE COUTTS 4”
The July 2023 prosecution of Pawlowski is because he addressed the crowd gathered in the tavern at Coutts.
Marco Huigenbos, town councillor Fort MacLeod, is under prosecution because he went to Coutts. And happens, in my opinion, to be a natural leader.
Sent: August 8, 2023 11:24 AM Subject:article about one of the Lethbridge trials
Hi Sandra,
I don’t know if you saw this article about the trial re the Coutts blockade and the 4 men who are on trial. (URL in next email.)
It seems overwhelming right now, partly because so much more has been exposed and also because there is this tremendous push right now to steamroll over ordinary people all over the world.
= = = = = = = =
Sent: August 16, 2023 12:57 PM Subject: RE: Grus case update
Thanks for the Constable Helen Grus update (August 15, 2023).
3 excerpts, with thanks to the reporting by Rebel News:
Grus was censored by her superiors as she attempted to probe an unusual pattern of sudden infant deaths (a cluster of 9 SIDS deaths) following the rollout of the novel COVID vaccines.
Ottawa detective conducts alleged ‘unauthorized’ probe into the COVID-19 vaccination status of mothers whose babies died suddenly, superiors launch a vendetta against her after media leak.
(Former RCMP officer Danny Bulford attended the Police disciplinary hearing of Grus. He later testified at the
National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) and claims that people within the force will “self-censor themselves” out of fear. “That is one of the most chilling things I heard you say in your testimony,” replied the commissioner. The Rebel News report includes the NCI video clip.
Included at the URL, there WAS an inserted youtube interview of Jaclyne Martin, the wife of Jerry Morin who is one of “The Coutts 4”.
The story is another of those shockers that should get out. Jaclyne Martin, well-spoken. I wish I had a copy of the interview to post.
= = = = = = =
I am now back in BC after 2-3 weeks with my Mother and family (in Sask); also a stop in Lethbridge for the Pawlowski sentencing – – which didn’t happen.
A take away from Lethbridge experience: Some people in the Justice System (Lethbridge, AB for example!) do not want to understand that trials are PUBLIC. If they refuse to tell you the status of particular cases and refer you to “boards” where there is no record of the particular case, the proceedings can’t be followed. They are not accessible by the public, not even if you go in person! It all seems so mis-guided, counter-productive and such stupid strategy on their part. EXCEPT THAT what they do is DELIBERATE. Unbelievable that this is Canada/
Thankfully “things are happening!”. Like this that you sent, “The Coutts Four” (outrageous charges of conspiracy to murder RCMP officers), and the interview of the wife of one of them, Jaclyne Martin – – my God! Bless her for refusing to settle and being able to maintain her courage and determination.
NOTE: In November 2022 I went to Calgary, to a large gathering of concerned people, Rebel News was the organizer. I went because I wanted to meet people in person, hear what they have to say. So I can make my own evaluations. Are they radical crazies? . . . uh unh. No. I met and talked with good people. If Canada didn’t have these people, we’d really be up the creek, with not much hope of pulling back from the brink of tyrannical disaster. I don’t endorse all that is said, but I seldom do! no matter who’s doing the talking!
– – – – – – – –
In reply to
From: Saskatchewan Sent: August 22, 2023 Subject: Fw: Provincial Lawmakers are preparing for an RCMP-less Saskatchewan – TFIGlobal
Listening to the Inquiry into Invocation of Emergencies Act helped solidify my long-held view that DE-centralization where possible & practical serves people better.
Centralization of the RCMP, to me, helped foster a police state. ONE CENTRE; ONE VIEW; AND little capability for ACCOUNTABILITY. The powers-that-be slid incompetent people into top jobs. The TOP ECHELONS were YES MEN & YES WOMEN . . . COURTIERS. Common tactic of tyrants. . . .
Jaclyne Martin (she’s a skeet shooter) is being processed on Sept 19th in Lethbridge, the last I heard. The “Coutts 4” have been held in jail for well over a year, denied bail. I listened to an interview of Jaclyne Martin. The abuse of the Justice system is God awful, IMHO. Among worse things done, Jaclyne has not been allowed to visit, she is not allowed to see her husband, for well over a year now.
This is all the doing of the RCMP. There’s no guarantee that local police would do better; but they MIGHT understand the lay of the land better??!!
I am going to attend the Sept Court proceedings in Lethbridge – – they better not get postponed again! The Justice System has to be held to account.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that certain officials from President Joe Biden’s administration overstepped their bounds by pressuring social media platforms to limit specific content. The court affirmed that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI likely infringed upon the First Amendment by urging or significantly influencing the decisions of social media companies to censor content.
However, the court delineated its position, pointing out discrepancies with a previous lower court decision. It disagreed with the district court’s previous judgment that the NIAID, CISA, and State Department Officials had potentially violated the First Amendment.
The broader injunction originally issued by District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty in the Missouri v. Biden case sought to bar the Biden administration from pushing social media platforms to censor. This injunction was rooted in the belief that these actions suppressed protected speech.
In the lead-up to the 2020 elections, the FBI’s interactions with tech giants came under intense scrutiny. The court agreed that their collaboration wasn’t confined solely to addressing foreign threats and that the FBI extended its scope to encompass content emerging from within American borders.
The judges wrote that the Biden Administration likely “coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences,” and also found the White House “significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment.”
Of the ten provisions set in the original injunction, the court decided to maintain the sixth one. This provision prohibits officials from exerting undue influence on companies to remove content. The language of this provision was revised to ensure clarity and to prevent misinterpretation. It emphasizes that government officials must not pressure social media platforms to censor protected free speech, even in indirect manners.
Elaborating on the decision, the court noted, “Under the modified injunction, the enjoined Defendants cannot coerce or significantly encourage a platform’s content-moderation decisions.” Any suggestion of adverse consequences, even if not directly communicated or realized, that may be perceived as punitive in nature by a reasonable individual, falls under this prohibition.
While the ruling marked a major development, the appeals court also accepted the Biden administration’s plea to pause the enforcement of the injunction for ten days, allowing them time to approach the Supreme Court.
“In an unprecedented, historic decision, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that the conduct of the White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI violated Americans’ First Amendment rights. The government cannot coerce or encourage social media companies to censor views it dislikes. This decision vindicates the Plaintiffs’ rights and protects the free speech of all Americans,” said Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel of the NCLA to Reclaim The Net. The NCLA represented their clients, censorship victims, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines in the lawsuit.
“The Biden Administration’s coordinated censorship campaign against the American people ends today. The Fifth Circuit’s decision details blatantly unlawful conduct by multiple agencies, and its order forbids the government’s widespread contempt for the First Amendment from continuing in no uncertain terms,” Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA said.
With an ominous call for increased global collaboration and centralization, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen at a G20 Summit session, dubbed “One Future,” today appealed for an international regulatory body for Artificial Intelligence and digital ID systems similar to coronavirus vaccine passports.
Von der Leyen audaciously proclaimed our collective future to be digital, hence the implied necessity for global entities to draw boundaries and enforce regulations.
Von der Leyen, in her position as the EU Commission President, touched on AI and the digital landscape in her address. She acknowledged the potential dangers and gargantuan opportunities linked with advancing AI technology and emphasized the importance of channeling such explosive technology.
“Today I want to focus on AI and digital infrastructure. As it has been described, AI has risks but also offers tremendous opportunities. The crucial question is how to harness a rapidly changing technology.
“In the EU, in 2020, we presented the first-ever law on artificial intelligence. We want to facilitate innovation while building trust. But we need more. What the world does now will shape our future. I believe that Europe — and its partners — should develop a new global framework for AI risks,” von der Leyen said.
Von der Leyen praised the European Union’s move in 2020 to introduce the first legal framework on AI, a step taken with the intent of fostering innovation alongside trust. However, she insisted that this wasn’t sufficient. She suggested a multinational adoption of a coping mechanism for managing AI risks.
The EU Chief also stressed that globally accepted standards must be created under the purview of the United Nations, akin to their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Humanity stood to benefit, she argued, if an international authority could clarify the risks and rewards related to AI, akin to the IPCC for climate concerns.
Concurrently, von der Leyen championed the concept of digital public infrastructure similar to the coronavirus passport system – a system developed by the EU as a response to the Covid saga. The World Health Organization embraced it with open arms as a global standard for combating health threats.
“Many of you are familiar with the COVID-19 digital certificate. The EU developed it for itself. The model was so functional and so trusted that 51 countries on 4 continents adopted it for free. Today, the WHO uses it as a global standard to facilitate mobility in times of health threats,” von der Leyen continued.
Alarmingly, von der Leyen praised the EU’s strides towards a bloc-wide digital identity app capable of storing a citizen’s personal information, including credit cards, driver’s license, and passport data.
These developments ring alarm bells for individuals and nations valuing free speech and privacy.
In the recent wave of internet regulations emerging from California, one stands out as particularly contentious: AB 587, labeled the “transparency” bill. While the overarching concept of transparency has been applauded by some, the real-world implications of this particular legislation have raised alarms across the digital space as, in this instance, it’s being used as a form of censorship.
Elon Musk and X, with his notable influence and resources, has stepped into the spotlight to challenge this law’s validity and is welcomed since a similar lawsuit against the bill failed in recent weeks.
AB 587 exemplifies the complications of politicians trying to curb online “misinformation,” and how they rub up against the First Amendment.
When Minds, Tim Pool, and the Babylon Bee took the charge with a lawsuit filed earlier this year, the lawsuit eventually fizzled out as the judge couldn’t find how the law would affect the plaintiffs. The court cited an inadequate presentation of the potential harm this law could inflict.
While some argued that the law did affect the plaintiffs, it’s very clear that it does at least affect large social media platforms – meaning that the door was open for another entity to come along and challenge the law.
Taking up the mantle, Musk’s X has now mounted a robust legal challenge against the law. Bolstering their claim, they’ve enlisted Floyd Abrams, a renowned First Amendment lawyer, to represent them, and have gone with a strong compelled speech argument.
According to the lawsuit, filed by X, AB 587, promoted by the State of California as a “transparency” measure for social media companies, is argued to infringe on constitutional free speech rights. The complaint claims it forces companies like X into involuntary speech and meddles in their editorial decisions. The argument points out that while the law mandates companies to disclose their content moderation policies, its real intention is to coerce these platforms into eradicating content the state finds problematic. This perspective is supported by legislative documents and statements from the law’s creators, emphasizing the objective to combat “divisive content” and promote “better corporate citizens.” Essentially, critics believe the primary aim of AB 587 is to pressure platforms into eliminating government-disapproved content.
Read background information on California’s AB 587 here.
Read the analysis of the failure of the first legal challenge here.
America First Legal has disclosed that their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General resulted in the categorization of “misinformation” and “disinformation” investigations as a “law enforcement matter.”
This information stems from an inquiry into the Attorney General’s response to a letter written by twelve Democrat state attorneys general to the heads of Twitter (now X) and Facebook.
In a reply on September 6, 2023, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office opted to withhold records in relation to AFL’s inquiry. The reason? Disclosures could inadvertently shed light on “multistate law enforcement matters.” The nature of the letter itself, a call for censorship, was intriguingly described as a “multistate” “law enforcement matter.”
This treatment of misinformation and disinformation as potential legal transgressions has heightened concerns surrounding the sanctity of free speech.
In response to this, AFL is diving deeper, submitting a subsequent request to the Attorney General’s office. They seek clarity and comprehensive records that shed light on how many such “law enforcement investigations” linked to misinformation or disinformation have been undertaken.
Gene Hamilton, Vice President and General Counsel of America First Legal, voiced his alarm: “If so-called misinformation and disinformation are legitimate law enforcement matters for the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, then the First Amendment is under much more severe threat than anyone realizes. They are either trying to hide the existence of damaging emails and documents that reveal the extent of their desire to censor American speech, or they have completely lost their minds regarding what the First Amendment protects.”
The tweet in question had Ruth reacting to a photograph of a transgender individual. “I do believe that people should be allowed to wear what they want etc etc… But what blows my mind is the idea that with heavy five o’clock shadow, a perm and lippy and a bag with gold chains = woman,” Ruth tweeted. She went on to add, “While us boring biological women get derided if we have one or two faint chin hairs.”
Shortly after this tweet was highlighted to Cornerstones’ management, Ruth’s ongoing projects were halted and her profile was taken down from the consultancy’s official website. The abrupt removal left Ruth feeling “shell shocked” and marginalized, reflecting on the experience as a moment she “just disappeared.” Describing the sudden turn of events, she said, “They took me off a project. It was just a bit strange.”
Emphasizing her position, The Telegraph reported, Ruth clarified that her stance wasn’t against progressive views, stating, “This is not a fight against wokeness. It is simply fighting for freedom of expression.”
Cornerstones, in their public apology posted on Twitter, acknowledged their oversight, confessing that the dismissal was due to her expressing opinions that clashed with the views of the Cornerstones team. They further admitted that while they were concerned about potential backlash from the broader publishing community, their reaction to the situation was hasty. They conceded, “Cornerstones ought to have more firmly encouraged an open dialogue with her before taking any action.”
Furthermore, the company recognized Ruth’s feminist beliefs, stating they are “worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Ruth, having served Cornerstones for 18 months, was among the consultancy’s group of freelance editors, providing invaluable mentoring, copy editing, and proofreading services to various authors.
Cornerstones’ actions prompted Ruth to launch a crowdfunding campaign for her legal expenses, eventually raising £16,000 ($20,000). In her statement on the site, she expressed her gratitude towards her legal team, notably the lawyers from the Free Speech Union, and the overwhelming public support she received.
The suppression of free speech is almost always based on arrogance, and boils down to “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The College of Psychologists of Ontario demands that Dr. Jordan Peterson submit to mandatory re-education (the college calls it a “coaching program”) to make his public expression of opinion conform to the college’s progressive ideology.
The college claims that various political and cultural comments made by Dr. Peterson are “degrading, demeaning, unprofessional, disgraceful and dishonourable,” and that they pose “moderate risks of harm to the public” such as “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology.”
The world-famous author, podcaster, and political commentator has been registered with the college as a clinical psychologist since 1999 but stopped seeing patients in 2017. Nevertheless, the most famous Canadian on the planet has maintained his membership in the college and refers to himself publicly as a clinical psychologist.
The complaints against Dr. Peterson are not about how he cared for his patients. Rather, complaints have come from people who disagree with his comments on cultural and political topics like racism, transgenderism, and feminism. A life-long student of totalitarianism as practised by the National Socialists in Germany (1933–1945) and by the international socialists (communists) in the Soviet Union (1917–1991) and other countries, Dr. Peterson has repeatedly warned of the dangers of slowly losing our freedom of expression.
As summarized by Justices Backhouse, Schabas, and Krawchenko, who are sitting as a Divisional Court panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the comments to which the college objected include the following:
(a) A tweet on Jan. 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating, “You’re free to leave at any point.” (b) Various comments made on a Jan. 25, 2022, appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, where Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was a “pack of lies.” Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said (with sarcastic irony), “It’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.” (c) A tweet on Feb. 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a “prik.” (d) A tweet on Feb. 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa city councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing.” (e) In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022, “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.” (f) A further complaint about Dr. Peterson’s Jan. 2, 2022, tweet in which he responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating, “You’re free to leave at any point.” (g) Dr. Peterson’s tweet posted in May 2022, commenting on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition plus-sized model, “Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
On Nov. 22, 2022, a disciplinary panel of the college ruled that Dr. Peterson “appeared to be engaging in degrading comments about a former client and making demeaning jokes” on the “Joe Rogan Experience.” The college felt that by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by using Elliot’s former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing thing’… Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.” The college felt that referring to the physician who removed Elliot Page’s breasts as a “criminal” is “inflammatory and unprofessional.” The college regards the Gerald Butts and Sports Illustrated comments as “disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.”
Predictably, the college has also asserted that it “in no way disagrees that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Dr. Peterson a right to freedom of expression.” The “professional standards and ethics” used by the college to censor Dr. Peterson happen to have been created by the college and are now interpreted and enforced by the college. If a psychologist says something the college dislikes, it can simply declare those comments to be “unprofessional” or “unethical” or both. That ends the debate. This makes it possible for the college to join so many other censors, presently and throughout history, who say: “I like free speech, as long as you say what I like.”
That the court sided with the college against Dr. Peterson is not surprising, considering the fact that Canada’s Chief Justice, Richard Wagner has stated publicly that he is “proud” of his Supreme Court being “progressive.” Many Canadian judges would reject this ideological bias, but a public declaration of this kind, from the leader of the highest court in the land, does set the tone for other courts.
The three-judge panel held that the forced re-education of Dr. Peterson is nothing to worry about because it is merely “remedial” and not “disciplinary,” and will have only a “minimal” impact on Dr. Peterson’s right to freedom of expression.
The court split hairs by declaring that it “was not necessary to engage in whether Dr. Peterson’s comments were supported by facts or were his honest opinion, as the concern arises from the nature of the language used, not the validity of his opinions.” So, truth and facts don’t matter to this court; it’s all about some mysterious “nature of the language used” that empowers the college to censor the speech of psychologists.
It’s no different for nurse Amy Hamm, currently being prosecuted by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives for stating publicly that there are only two sexes, and that women deserve their own safe spaces (washrooms, changerooms, female-only sporting events, female prisons, etc.) where biological males may not enter.
In like manner, law societies across Canada are now monitoring the speech of lawyers, even forcing lawyers to express agreement with beliefs and goals that individual lawyers disagree with.
In this way, “professional standards” become the pretext for silencing Canadian doctors, nurses, psychologists, accountants, lawyers, teachers, engineers, and other professionals who espouse conservative, libertarian, traditionalist, classical liberal, or other non-woke, non-progressive opinions.
U.S. Military Industrial Complex Is ‘Choking Democracy’ — How Do We Stop It?
America’s founders were profoundly skeptical of large militaries, of entangling alliances with foreign powers and of permanent wars, according to Bill Astore, a “card-carrying member” of the military-industrial complex, who warns: “So should we all be.”
My name is Bill Astore and I’m a card-carrying member of the military-industrial complex, or MIC.
Sure, I hung up my military uniform for the last time in 2005. Since 2007, I’ve been writing articles for TomDispatch focused largely on critiquing that same MIC and America’s permanent war economy.
Nevertheless, I remain a lieutenant colonel, if a retired one. I still have my military ID card, if only to get on bases, and I still tend to say “we” when I talk about my fellow soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen (and our “guardians,” too, now that we have a Space Force).
So, when I talk to organizations that are antiwar, that seek to downsize, dismantle, or otherwise weaken the MIC, I’m upfront about my military biases even as I add my own voice to their critiques.
Of course, you don’t have to be antiwar to be highly suspicious of the U.S. military.
Senior leaders in “my” military have lied so often, whether in the Vietnam War era of the last century or in this one about “progress” in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you’d have to be asleep at the wheel or ignorant not to have suspected the official story.
Yet I also urge antiwar forces to see more than mendacity or malice in “our” military.
It was retired general and then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, after all, who first warned Americans of the profound dangers of the military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell address.
Not enough Americans heeded Eisenhower’s warning then and, judging by our near-constant state of warfare since that time, not to speak of our ever-ballooning “defense” budgets, very few have heeded his warning to this day. How to explain that?
Well, give the MIC credit. Its tenacity has been amazing. You might compare it to an invasive weed, a parasitic cowbird (an image I’ve used before), or even a metastasizing cancer.
As a weed, it’s choking democracy; as a cowbird, it’s gobbling up most of the “food” (at least half of the federal discretionary budget) with no end in sight; as a cancer, it continues to spread, weakening our individual freedoms and liberty.
Call it what you will. The question is: How do we stop it?
Despite our critiques, the MIC grows ever stronger. If Eisenhower’s warning wasn’t eye-opening enough, enhanced by an even more powerful speech, “Beyond Vietnam,” by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1967, what could I and my fellow TomDispatch writers possibly say or do to make a difference?
Maybe nothing, but that won’t stop me from trying. Since I am the MIC, so to speak, maybe I can look within for a few lessons that came to me the hard way (in the sense that I had to live them). So, what have l learned of value?
War racketeers enjoy their racket
In the 1930s, Smedley Butler, a Marine general twice decorated with the Medal of Honor, wrote a book entitled, “War Is a Racket.” He knew better than most since, as he confessed in that volume when he wore a military uniform, he served as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
And the corporate-driven racket he helped enable almost a century ago by busting heads from the Caribbean to China was small-scale indeed compared to today’s thoroughly global one.
There’s an obvious lesson to be drawn from its striking endurance, never-ending enlargement and distinct engorgement in our moment (even after all those lost wars it fought): the system will not reform itself.
It will always demand and take more — more money, more authority, more power.
It will never be geared for peace. By its nature, it’s authoritarian and distinctly less than honorable, replacing patriotism with service loyalty and victory with triumphant budgetary authority.
And it always favors the darkest of scenarios, including at present a new cold war with China and Russia, because that’s the best and most expedient way for it to thrive.
Those few who have a conscience and speak out honorably are punished, including truth-tellers in the enlisted ranks like Chelsea Manning and Daniel Hale. Even being an officer doesn’t make you immune.
For his temerity in resisting the Vietnam War, David M. Shoup, a retired Marine Corps general and Medal of Honor recipient was typically dismissed by his peers as unbalanced and of questionable sanity.
For all the talk of “mavericks,” whether in Top Gun or elsewhere, we — there’s that “we” again (I can’t help myself!) — in the military are a hotbed of go-along-to-get-along conformity.
Recently, I was talking with a senior enlisted colleague about why so few top-ranking officers are willing to speak truth to the powerless (that’s you and me) even after they retire. He mentioned credibility.
To question the system, to criticize it, to air dirty laundry in public is to risk losing credibility within the club and so to be rejected as a malcontent, disloyal, even “unbalanced.”
Then, of course, that infamous revolving door between the military and giant weapons makers like Boeing and Raytheon simply won’t spin for you.
Seven-figure compensation packages, like the one current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin gained from Raytheon after his retirement as an Army general, won’t be an option.
And in America, who doesn’t want to cash in while gaining more power within the system?
Quite simply, it pays so much better to mouth untruths, or at least distinctly less-than-full-truths, in service to the powerful.
And with that in mind, here, at least as I see it, are a few full truths about my old service, the U.S. Air Force, that I guarantee you I won’t be applauded for mentioning.
How about this as a start: that the production of F-35s — an overpriced “Ferrari” of a fighter jet that’s both too complex and remarkably successful as an underperformer — should be canceled (savings: as much as $1 trillion over time); that the much-touted new B-21 nuclear bomber isn’t needed (savings: at least $200 billion) and neither is the new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (savings: another $200 billion and possibly the entire Earth from doomsday); that the KC-46 tanker is seriously flawed and should be canceled (savings: another $50 billion).
Now, tote it up. By canceling the F-35, the B-21, the Sentinel and the KC-46, I singlehandedly saved the American taxpayer roughly $1.5 trillion without hurting America’s national defense in the least. But I’ve also just lost all credibility (assuming I had any left) with my old service.
Look, what matters to the military-industrial complex isn’t either the truth or saving your taxpayer dollars but keeping those weapons programs going and the money flowing.
What matters, above all, is keeping America’s economy on a permanent wartime footing both by buying endless new (and old) weapons systems for the military and selling them globally in a bizarrely Orwellian pursuit of peace through war.
How are Americans, Eisenhower’s “alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” supposed to end a racket like this?
We certainly should know one thing by now: the MIC will never check itself and Congress, already part of it thanks to impressive campaign donations and the like by major weapons makers, won’t corral it either.
Indeed, last year, Congress shoveled $45 billion more than the Biden administration requested (more even than the Pentagon asked for) to that complex, all ostensibly in your name. Who cares that it hasn’t won a war of the faintest significance since 1945.
Even “victory” in the Cold War (after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991) was thrown away. And now the complex warns us of an onrushing “new cold war” to be waged, naturally, at tremendous cost to you, the American taxpayer.
As citizens, we must be informed, willing and able to act. And that’s precisely why the complex seeks to deny you knowledge, precisely why it seeks to isolate you from its actions in this world. So, it’s up to you — to us — to remain alert and involved.
Most of all, each of us must struggle to keep our identity and autonomy as a citizen, a rank higher than that of any general or admiral, for, as we all need to be reminded, those wearing uniforms are supposed to serve you, not vice-versa.
I know you hear otherwise. You’ve been told repeatedly in these years that it’s your job to “support our troops.” Yet, in truth, those troops should only exist to support and defend you, and of course the Constitution, the compact that binds us all together as a nation.
When misguided citizens genuflect before those troops (and then ignore everything that’s done in their name), I’m reminded yet again of Eisenhower’s sage warning that only Americans can truly hurt this country.
Military service may be necessary, but it’s not necessarily ennobling. America’s founders were profoundly skeptical of large militaries, of entangling alliances with foreign powers and of permanent wars and threats of the same. So should we all be.
Citizens United is the answer
No, not that “Citizens United,” not the case in which the Supreme Court decided corporations had the same free speech rights as you and me, allowing them to coopt the legislative process by drowning us out with massive amounts of “speech,” aka dark-money-driven propaganda.
We need citizens united against America’s war machine.
Understanding how that machine works — not just its waste and corruption, but also its positive attributes — is the best way to wrestle it down, to make it submit to the people’s will. Yet activists are sometimes ignorant of the most basic facts about “their” military.
So what? Does the difference between a sergeant major and a major, or a chief petty officer and the chief of naval operations matter? The answer is: yes.
An antimilitary approach anchored in ignorance won’t resonate with the American people. An antiwar message anchored in knowledge could, however. It’s important, that is, to hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Look, for example, at the traction Donald Trump gained in the presidential race of 2015-2016 when he did something few other politicians then dared do: dismiss the Iraq War as wasteful and stupid.
His election win in 2016 was not primarily about racism, nor the result of a nefarious Russian plot. Trump won, at least in part because, despite his ignorance on so many other things, he spoke a fundamental truth — that America’s wars of this century were horrendous blunders.
Trump, of course, was anything but antimilitary. He dreamed of military parades in Washington, D.C. But I (grudgingly) give him credit for boasting that he knew more than his generals and by that I mean many more Americans need to challenge those in authority, especially those in uniform.
Yet challenging them is just a start. The only real way to wrestle the military-industrial complex to the ground is to cut its funding in half, whether gradually over years or in one fell swoop. Yes, indeed, it’s the understatement of the century to note how much easier that’s said than done.
It’s not like any of us could wave a military swagger stick like a magic wand and make half the Pentagon budget disappear.
But consider this: If I could do so, that military budget would still be roughly $430 billion, easily more than China’s and Russia’s combined, and more than seven times what this country spends on the State Department.
As usual, you get what you pay for, which for America has meant more weapons and disastrous wars.
Join me in imagining the (almost) inconceivable — a Pentagon budget cut in half. Yes, generals and admirals would scream and Congress would squeal.
But it would truly matter because, as a retired Army major general once told me, major budget cuts would force the Pentagon to think — for once.
With any luck, a few sane and patriotic officers would emerge to place the defense of America first, meaning that hubristic imperial designs and forever wars would truly be reined in because there’d simply be no more money for them.
Currently, Americans are giving the Pentagon all it wants — plus some. And how’s that been working out for the rest of us? Isn’t it finally time for us to exercise real oversight, as Eisenhower challenged us to do in 1961?
Isn’t it time to force the Pentagon to pass an audit each year — it’s failed the last five — or else cut its budget even more deeply?
Isn’t it time to hold Congress truly responsible for enabling ever more war by voting out military sycophants?
Isn’t it time to recognize, as America’s founders did, that sustaining a vast military establishment constitutes the slow and certain death of democracy?
Just remember one thing: the military-industrial complex won’t reform itself. It just might have no choice, however, but to respond to our demands, if we as citizens remain alert, knowledgeable, determined and united.
And if it should refuse to, if the MIC can’t be tamed, whether because of its strength or our weakness, you will know beyond doubt that this country has truly lost its way.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel of the U.S. Air Force, who has taught at the Air Force Academy, the Naval Postgraduate School and taught history at the Pennsylvania College of Technology.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
.png)
