Anastasia Lin exposes Red China’s human rights abuses.
Anastasia Lin won the Miss World Canada title in 2015 and was to represent Canada at the pageant to be held in China but was refused a visa by Chinese authorities and declared persona non grata.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLTew86v48
The Liberals Contemplate A New Law to Outlaw “Misinformation” About Coronavirus
The Canadian Association for Free Expression has warned from the beginning of the Coronavirus hysteria that governments would use this as an opportunity for a power grab and to curtain civil liberties.
We’ve seen people heavily fined for walking their dog in a park or kicking a soccer ball to their child in a park.
Now, the power mad elite is contemplating a law to gag discussion of the Coronavirus crisis, if the discussion contradicts the government’s party line. CBC (April 15, 2020) reports: “The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc. He said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers, including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.”
Needless to say the NDP is supportive of restricting free speech. “
NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.
“Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and it is about protecting the public,” he said.
“This is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of people who are actually actively working to spread disinformation, whether it’s through troll bot farms, whether [it’s] state operators or whether it’s really conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of creating havoc.”
To his credit Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has spoken out strongly against this totalitarian power grab. “
“We’re concerned when
this government starts talking about free speech issues,” Scheer told
reporters at a news conference Thursday. “They’ve got a terrible history
over the past few years of proposing ideas that would infringe upon
free speech.”
“Any time this government starts talking about regulating what people can say and not say, we start off the conversation with a great deal of healthy skepticism,” Scheer added, pointing out that the government has changed its pandemic messaging on travel restrictions and the use of masks.”
Mr. Scheer is hinting at the fact the Sinophile government has spread a good deal of false news itself. Faithfully parroting the Red Chinese propaganda line, they early denounced any calls for a travel ban or restrictions on visitors from Red China and pooh poohed the usefulness of face masks.
__________________
Federal government open to new law to fight pandemic misinformation
It’s one of several measures the government is considering to counter fake news about the virus online
Elizabeth Thompson · CBC News · Posted: Apr 15, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
The
federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an
offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says
Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.
LeBlanc told
CBC News he is interested in British MP Damian Collins’s call for laws
to punish those responsible for spreading dangerous misinformation
online about the COVID-19 pandemic.
LeBlanc
said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers,
including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to
follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.
“Legislatures
and Parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of
the pandemic, so it’s not a quick solution, but it’s certainly something
that we would be open [to] as a government,” said LeBlanc.
NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.
‘Cranks … creating havoc’
“Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and it is about protecting the public,” he said.
“This
is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of people
who are actually actively working to spread disinformation, whether it’s
through troll bot farms, whether [it’s] state operators or whether it’s
really conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of
creating havoc.”
Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer criticized the idea of using legislation to curb misinformation.
“We’re
concerned when this government starts talking about free speech
issues,” Scheer told reporters at a news conference Thursday. “They’ve
got a terrible history over the past few years of proposing ideas that
would infringe upon free speech.”
“Any
time this government starts talking about regulating what people can
say and not say, we start off the conversation with a great deal of
healthy skepticism,” Scheer added, pointing out that the government has
changed its pandemic messaging on travel restrictions and the use of
masks.
The comments
come as governments around the world struggle to curb dangerous
misinformation and disinformation circulating about the COVID-19
pandemic.
Collins, who chaired an international committee on big data, privacy and democracy in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal,
said at the outset of the pandemic that much of the misinformation and
disinformation in circulation was promoting fake cures for COVID-19 or
offering tips on how to avoid catching it.
More
recently, said Collins, the misinformation has shifted to conspiracy
theories about what triggered the pandemic — claims that it was cooked
up in a lab, for example. A conspiracy theory claiming the disease is
caused by 5G wireless signals prompted attacks on wireless towers in the
U.K.
The British
government has set up a rapid response team to correct false information
circulating online. Collins has launched a fact-checking site called Infotagion, along with Angus and Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith, among others.
‘Maliciously’ spreading lies
Collins
is calling for legislation to combat online disinformation, perhaps
modelled on Germany’s laws governing online hate speech or France’s
legislation countering disinformation during election campaigns.
“It’s
such a serious public emergency that I think for someone to knowingly,
willingly and at scale and maliciously spread this content should be an
offence,” he said.
“And
equally for the tech companies, if it is highlighted to [them] that
someone is doing this and they don’t act against them doing it, then it
should be an offence for them to have failed to act — they would have
failed in their duty of care.”
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau’s government set up an elaborate system to
watch out for attempts to disrupt last year’s federal election through
disinformation, including a committee that brought together several
departments and a special group chaired by the clerk of the Privy
Council to sound the alarm.
Opportunistic criminals
The
Communications Security Establishment (CSE) has been monitoring what’s
happening online during the pandemic, and has helped to remove fake
sites set up by cybercriminals.
“Opportunistic
cyber threat actors are attempting to take advantage of Canadians’
heightened levels of concern and legitimate fears around COVID-19,” said
CSE spokesperson Ryan Foreman. “They are trying to spread
misinformation and scam Canadians out of their money or private data.
“COVID-19
has presented cybercriminals and fraudsters with an effective lure to
encourage victims to visit fake web sites, open email attachments and
click on text message links. These emails typically impersonate health
organizations, and can even pretend to be from the government of
Canada.”
Health Canada
has the lead on monitoring for misinformation. For example, it is
sending compliance letters to companies it finds making false or
questionable claims about COVID-19.
“It’s
really the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada that have
been, amongst other things, identifying as best as possible some of the
more flagrant examples of misinformation, disinformation,” said LeBlanc.
Last
week, the Canadian Heritage department announced $3 million in grants
to eight groups across the country to combat “false and misleading
COVID-19 information.”
LeBlanc
admits that while the government’s previous work leading up to the
election made Canadians more aware of online misinformation and
disinformation, the structures that it set up were designed with an
election campaign in mind.
“I
think governments around the world were caught, to some extent, by
surprise in terms of the rapidity by which the pandemic spread,” LeBlanc
said, adding that the online misinformation emerged as quickly as the
pandemic itself.
“So
governments in Canada, and I say governments plural … were forced to
stand up very quickly a bunch of measures. I think we’ve done,
comparatively, in Canada very well.”
Angus
said the speed of COVID-19’s spread left the government without a game
plan. Now, he said, it should set up a team to fight misinformation
about the virus.
“I
think it would be reasonable to enact with the RCMP, with our security
officials and some public officials, a team to monitor disinformation
and have the power to shut it down so it does not interfere with the
efforts of our frontline medical workers,” said Angus.
“We need to be taking all measures right now because we don’t know how long we’re going to be in this crisis.”
With files from Katie Nicholson and Jason Ho.
Elizabeth Thompson can be reached at elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca
I am sure that you are familiar with the saying “your right to throw a punch stops at my face.”
Fact: Coronavirus is deadly, and cases are present in Bonner and Kootenai counties.
Fact: Health care workers are 200-400% as likely to contract the virus.
Fact: CDC states that social distancing orders and stay at home
orders will decrease the number of cases, and particularly, “flatten the
curve” so that health care resources are not overwhelmed.
Fact: Models of North Idaho demonstrate that, if unmitigated,
resources, particularly ICU beds and ventilators, will be overwhelmed.
Fact: Once overwhelmed, ethics committees have deemed that resources
are prioritized based on profession (more specifically health care
workers) followed by chance of survival, followed by age. Scarce
resources are NOT allocated by political or social status, wealth or
“first-served.”
Because you believe that the stay-at-home order is unlawful (which it
is not, under state of emergency), and more importantly, have used your
public office to encourage others to violate the order, you have put
law-abiding citizens, and health care workers at increased risk of
infection, hospitalization and death.
As such, your punch has reached my face. It is criminal that you
would use your pubic office to threaten the health of your constituents
and your local and regional health care workers. Similar to Bonner
County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, the entire medical staff at Kootenai
Health is aware of this reckless behavior.
I realize that the pandemic is not much of a concern to those
uneducated people who believe this threat is a “hoax” or “overblown,”
but I want you to know that in the unlikely but possible event that
either you or Sheriff Wheeler contract the coronavirus, and in the less
likely event that you will require hospitalization, and even less likely
but possible event that you would require a ventilator, that I, and all
of my co-workers take comfort in knowing that, because of your
behavior, you have essentially relinquished your claim to any of these
potentially scare resources. It’s probably for the better that a
ventilator go to a health care provider anyway,
Please re-think your behavior and your actions and rescind your
comments and requests. Health care providers are concerned that we have
inadequate testing to know which of our patients are infected and
inadequate PPE to protect ourselves through a surge. As such we would
ask you to think of them/us, rather than yourself at this difficult
time. You could possibly use your legislative power to help with the
problem, rather than add to it.
DR. ROBERT J. BURNETT MD, FACS, FCCP
Coeur d’Alene
The views expressed in this letter are my own. They are in no way the opinions of Kootenai Health or its medical staff.
As Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I have warned that “coronavirus” will be used as an excuse for restrictions on free speech, state bullying and restriction of our rights, Here’s an example from Soviet South Africa.
Criminal charges laid against man for spreading fake newsn
06 Apr 2020
The Eastern Cape Department of Health has condemned a video doing the
rounds on social media where a man is calling on citizens to refuse
being tested for Covid-19.
The man, who identifies himself as Stephen Donald Birch from Cape Town says the tests are contaminated.
A criminal charge was laid against Birch on Monday morning.
The spokesperson for the Eastern Cape Department of Health Sizwe Kupelo says they condemn this video spreading fake news.
He says getting tested for the virus is the only way to flatten the curve.
The National death toll for COVID19 rose to 11 on Sunday night.
In the Western Cape, nine patients are currently receiving treatment in ICU.
On Monday, the government rolled out a massive screening and testing programme countrywide.
As civil liberties erode, Canada must not allow COVID-19 outbreak to infect the rule of law
Government can suppress civil liberties in the name of protecting them, but how far will it go?
Joseph Arvay, David Wu · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Mar 26, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: March 26
This
column is an opinion by Joseph Arvay QC and David Wu, lawyers at Arvay
Finlay LLP in Vancouver and Victoria, B.C. For more information about CBC’s Opinion section, please see the FAQ.
When
the lock-downs started occurring in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei,
China, quarantining more than 50 million people, many observers in
Western countries thought it impossible for such Draconian measures to
be implemented in the democratic West.
Only an authoritarian government could implement such liberty-infringing measures, right?
Yet the premier of Nova Scotia announced strict legal measures
Sunday to enforce isolation and social distancing, measures that
include fines and even potential imprisonment. He said, “a failure to
follow public guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19 puts our civil
liberties at risk.”
That statement might have struck some as
counter-intuitive or something of an oxymoron. We usually see our civil
liberties as being a bulwark against state action that seeks to deprive
us of our rights and freedoms, such as the right to liberty, and the
freedoms to assemble in public places and associate with our friends,
families and colleagues. And yet here was a provincial premier claiming
that these new laws — laws that would do just that — are in effect civil
libertarian measures.
Similar measures to counter COVID-19’s
transmission are now in place or expected at all levels of government in
Canada: federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal.
Provinces, cities crack down on social distancing rules
8 days ago
1:59
Provincial and local
governments are cracking down on people who are not following social
distancing or quarantine rules to try to prevent further spread of
COVID-19. 1:59
This raises legitimate
legal questions – how far can the state go to erode our civil liberties
in the name of protecting them? And where does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,which applies to federal, provincial and municipal laws, stand in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic?
A
declaration of a local, provincial, or federal emergency does not in
and of itself suspend the operation of the Charter. Our fundamental
Charter rights currently remain in place, and all laws and government
actions aimed at tackling the pandemic still need to be compliant with
the Charter.
We have no doubt that the measures taken so far by governments – from orders in some provinces to close all non-essential businesses, to the bylaw amendments in some cities to increase fines to up to $50,000 for breaches of emergency orders
– are compliant with the Charter, because none of our rights and
freedoms are absolute. All can be infringed by laws that “are
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
These
various measures would strike most people as proportionate to achieve
the pressing and compelling state objectives of protecting our citizens
from a deadly virus. Rights and liberties must sometimes make way in the
pursuit of other legitimate societal objectives, like public health.
And
such rights and liberties can themselves sometimes be in conflict (for
example, one’s right to liberty and association versus another’s right
to life and security of the person in the current pandemic).
‘Enough is enough,’ Trudeau toughens talk on isolation
8 days ago
1:58
Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau toughened his language around self-isolation and social
distancing while considering implementing the Emergencies Act. 1:58
Desperate
people sometimes take desperate measures. If the COVID-19 pandemic
worsens and poses an even greater threat to our society, we can expect
government measures increasingly to infringe on our civil liberties if
needed to deal with unrest.
Is a total lock-down in our future? Unrestricted state spying or surveillance? Suspension of habeas corpus? Martial law?
It seems safe to say that Canadians are in uncharted territory, and that includes our governments.
Ontario closes all non-essential services to slow COVID-19 spread
8 days ago
1:51
Ontario Premier Doug Ford
ordered all non-essential stores and services to close at the end of
Tuesday, to slow the spread of COVID-19. 1:51
Undoubtedly
the state will be accused by some of doing too much, and by others of
doing too little. Both sides could potentially rely on the Charterto bolster their position.
But the reality is that the Charterwill
not hamstring unprecedented government measures that are designed to
tackle an unprecedented crisis, as long as such measures can be
justified.
What the Chartermandates is proportionality
and balance. Particular care needs to be taken not to worsen the
already precarious situation of our homeless, prisoners, those seeking
refugee status, sex workers, drug addicts and other vulnerable and
marginalized communities.
These are, no doubt, very fearful
times. But what we hope is not in the cards is a government invoking the
“Notwithstanding clause” in section 33 of the Charter.
That would mean that there are no restrictions on those governments
that decide to enact laws that abolish our legal rights and fundamental
freedoms.
That, in our opinion, would be an unnecessary overreaction and a dangerous one.
Let’s not give the COVID-19 virus that power. It is causing enough havoc; let it not infect the rule of law.
This column is part of CBC’s Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.
[Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White. One wonders whether this apparently affirmative action appointee has ever heard of the First which ensures that people have the right to use even offensive language without fear of being hauled off by the cops.]
Seattle Police Chief Tells People To Call 911 If They Hear ‘Racist Name-Calling’
Don’t the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?
Seattle’s
top cop may want to get her priorities straightened out. In the midst
of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Police Chief Carmen Best used her most
recent “chief’s brief” update on the coronavirus crisis to urge
residents to dial 911 if they are the victims of racist name-calling.
It’s a time-wasting imperative—and one that’s at odds with the First Amendment.
In her briefing, Best called upon the expertise of a former local news anchor, Lori Matsukawa.
“Hate
crimes have no place in our community,” said Matsukawa. “We are all
trying to deal with the COVID-19 public health crisis together. If you
are a victim of a hate crime or hate-based harassment, please call 911.”
“We
will document and investigate every reported hate crime,” Best
continued. “Even racist name-calling should be reported to police. If
you aren’t sure if a hate crime occurred, call 911. We are here to
help.”
Jews
Target Free Expression in Fight Over ‘Hate Speech’
The tyrannical assault on the First Amendment and freedom of
speech, thought, and inquiry has reached a whole new level, as establishment
spokesmen and media outlets openly advance the notion that America needs
“hate speech” laws.
In a recently published op-ed in The Washington Post, Richard Stengel, a former high-ranking
State Department official under President Barack Obama and a former editor
of Time magazine,
argued that the United States should consider enacting “hate speech” laws
similar to the tyrannical laws in many European countries that criminalize such
things as “Holocaust denial” and “incitement of racial and religious hatred.”
These types of laws have effectively been used to persecute and punish any
individual investigating complex and disputed aspects of history, particularly
relating to WWII, as well as those who criticize massive Third
World immigration into the West, refugee resettlement, globalism
more generally, and other politically incorrect topics.
“All speech is not equal,” Stengel hypocritically argues in his
op-ed. “And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m
all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”
The very concept of “hate speech,” long promoted by
organizations such as the ADL and SPLC, essentially amounts to any criticism of
any aspect of the New World Order agenda and the forces behind it. Freedom of
speech, thought, and historical and scientific inquiry, bedrocks of the
American political tradition specifically and Western civilization more
generally, have increasingly been undermined and eroded by private entities
such as Google, YouTube, and Twitter that censor and punish dissenting opinions
on their platforms. Individuals expressing politically incorrect opinions also
increasingly face the risk of becoming targets of radical leftwing
organizations and activists, such as Antifa, that work tirelessly to publicly
shame and expose “thought criminals,” often leading to social ostracization and
loss of employment.
With establishment figures openly pushing for “hate speech”
laws, the Senate and House have both established Bipartisan Task Forces for
Combating Anti-Semitism, an initiative lobbied for by the Zionist lobby
dominating Capitol Hill in an effort to punish those who criticize Israel and the
pro-Zionist policies promoted by the D.C. establishment. Jonathan Greenblatt,
the CEO of the ADL, praised the recently established task force, arguing that
“we must all come together to fight the rise in anti-Semitism that threatens
communities everywhere.”
Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress,
likewise has called for more laws to combat anti-Semitism, especially online
anti-Semitism.
“After three decades, anti-Semitism has now reared its head,”
Lauder said in part during the recently concluded Second World Jewish Congress
International Meeting of Special Envoys and Coordinators for Combating
Anti-Semitism. “We want laws that really mean something.”
Of course, to them, anti-Semitism is not just about racism
against Jewish people. It includes criticism of Israel as a way to muzzle
opposition to that country’s policies.
Additionally, local and federal officials have even launched
investigations into harmless flyers simply declaring “It’s OK to be White” at
various universities across the country in an effort to determine if those
responsible for posting the flyers committed a “hate crime.”
At Oklahoma City University School of Law, investigators are
searching for the man who posted the flyers “to determine his intent and
whether the actions are a hate crime,” according to a local ABC affiliate in Oklahoma. Similar flyers
were posted on the campus of Western
Connecticut State
University recently,
prompting an official investigation by local and state police as well as the
FBI. University President John Clark described the posting of the flyers as “an
attack on our university community” and assured students that his office is
“making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished.”
The trouble is, even if the posters of these flyers only
intended to state the obvious in protest of the vilification of white people
especially on college campuses and never intended violence, it wouldn’t matter
to leftists. Once their identities are exposed, they will be harassed,
threatened, fired from their jobs, and likely driven from society all because
they had the audacity to try to push back against the establishment today.
NB: This article was originally published by American
Free Press on November 25, 2019. Subscribe to America’s last real newspaper today!