A CBC News report gives kids advice on how to shut down
“conspiracy theories” voiced by their parents about coronavirus being
created by China in a lab.
Because apparently that’s the media’s job now.
The presenter laments how somebody’s Dad may drop a message into chat
blaming China for “manufacturing the coronavirus” with a “link to a
site you’ve never heard of” (translation – a link that’s not, God
forbid, mainstream media).
The piece then features a woman from a group that combats
“misinformation online” who urges the son or daughter not to get
confrontational with their Dad but to accuse him of being accurate and
stirring fear.
At one point in the piece, the reporter even suggests that conspiracy theories can be “just as dangerous as a virus.”
“Maybe send an article from a legitimate source quoting credible
scientists on why the virus wasn’t manufactured,” states the host.
The suggested article unsurprisingly comes from the CBC and is
entitled ‘No, the new coronavirus wasn’t created in a lab, scientists
say.’
In reality, as Fox News sources confirmed
last night, the coronavirus was indeed leaked from a laboratory in
Wuhan, so to say it was “manufactured” isn’t even much of a stretch. The
virus was literally created in a lab.
The irony of all this of course is that virtually nobody trusts the
mainstream media, so when they attack conspiracy theories it just makes
more people believe them.
When social media giants then get involved to censor information
about the same conspiracy theories, that also bolsters the notion that
they’re accurate because powerful interests are trying to stifle them.
Today is Earth Day. More than just Earth Day, it’s
the 50th Anniversary of the very first Earth
Day.
That means that environmentalists, celebrities, and
especially environmentalist celebrities, are celebrating by scolding
the rest of us for living on the Earth and for not being as virtuous
as they are.
And make no mistake, if you’re not on board with their
radical, leftist, anti-life, unscientific climate-alarmist,
ideological agenda, approved with great enthusiasm by the UN—and the
WHO—you are not as virtuous as they are. Or so they say.
You’ll hear them screaming the same things this year
that they said last year, and you’ll hear them say those things again
next year. You can’t say they aren’t committed to recycling.
I, too, am celebrating Earth Day today, albeit in a slightly
different manner.
I’m celebrating Earth Day by recognizing the
wonderful countries that make up this earth, especially the country of
Canada! I celebrate by proudly standing for Canadian
sovereignty. As Prime Minister:
I will get Canada out of the UN Migration Compact;
I will oppose any legislation that enshrines the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law;
I will stop Canada’s funding of the World Health Organization (WHO);
I will stop Canada’s funding of international abortions; and
I will revoke Canada’s signature from the Paris Agreement (of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) and will repeal the federal carbon tax, which is meant to fulfill Canada’s “obligations” under this agreement.
I am also celebrating Earth Day by recognizing the
families that make up our beloved Canada (and
every other country on Earth) and the integrity of the invincible
family unit, always besieged by corrosive leftist social ideas. The
family is the irreplaceable fundamental building block of every free
society. As Prime Minister:
I will encourage a debate on abortion in Parliament and vote for whatever measures will help protect the unborn;
I will always support human life, especially against those who push agendas of forced population control;
I will always work to maintain the integrity of the Canadian family and the right of parents to make decisions about how their children are raised and educated, against the forces of state overreach into their children’s lives;
I will oppose and repeal any legislation that prohibits so-called “conversion therapy”; that is, I will oppose and repeal any legislation that interferes with parental rights when it comes to protecting children from unscrupulous efforts of certain forces bent on changing the “gender” of our children.
Finally, I am celebrating Earth Day by standing up
for freedom in our country and in our party. As
Prime Minister:
I will immediately repeal the “pro-gender ideology, anti-free speech” Bill C-16 because Canadians value free speech, not forced speech, and we recognize the fabrication and junk science that underpins this left-wing “gender ideology”;
I will oppose left-wing, anti-free speech initiatives such as motion M-103, which contain the seeds of eventual “blasphemy laws”, laws that are not compatible with a free and democratic society; and
I will continue to fight against the “cancel culture” in Canada, and within the Conservative Party itself. Our very own Red Tory, “Liberal Lite” faction, at every level of the party, continues to eliminate those who espouse views they find objectionable. This anti-democratic, leftist, elite persecution of the conservative grassroots must end.
Earth Day is far too important to be left exclusively to
those who love the planet but hate the wonderful human beings who live
here.
Do you agree, Frederick?
Happy Earth Day, everyone! Be fruitful and multiply!
And please be careful! Wear a mask when in public until we
are through this COVID-19 pandemic.
Paul Fromm warns us about the Canadian Liberal
Party considering making it a Criminal Offence to Knowingly Spread
Misinformation about just the coronavirus or what? Paul has been the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression since 1983.
CAFE is dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring
Political Sanity. The website can be found at http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and you can contact him at paul@paulfromm.com .
He has been an active leader on the Canadian right for 50 years and
has a steel trap memory so he is a treasure and resource of information
and history.
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.” – Rudyard Kipling
The way the World Health Organization, our power-hungry politicians, the
technocratic boobs with tunnel vision who are our health apparatchiks,
and the cheap harlots of the mainstream media talk about it, one would
think that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a real life equivalent of the
artificially engineered, antibody resistant, superflu which wipes out
most of the world’s population in Stephen King’s 1978 novel The Stand
and the various adaptations thereof. It is not. Although it is
possible that like the weaponized flu strain in the novel, it escaped
from a laboratory, that of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is not
remotely comparable in terms of lethality. It is basically a normal
strain of bat influenza that has jumped species to humans, that has been
spreading rapidly due to it being new to the species and thus our
having no built up immunity to it yet, but most people are not at risk
of anything worse than the ordinary flu from it. Those who are most
susceptible to developing the severe and potentially lethal form of
pneumonia that it can produce are the same people susceptible to
catching pneumonia and dying from H1N1 and the other, ordinary, seasonal
strains of the flu.
From the beginning of this pandemic it has been apparent that the WHO’s
claims with regards to the lethality of this virus have been greatly
exaggerated. Although the press in its daily reports has used
“staggering” and similar scare words to describe the rising death tolls,
the numbers themselves have not supported the use of such adjectives.
Not when taken in context at any rate. COVID-19 has not become the
leading cause of death, it is nowhere close to it. The overall number
of deaths from all causes for the period of this pandemic has not risen
astronomically in comparison with the number for the same period in
other years. Indeed, in some areas that have been particularly hard
hit by COVID-19 this number has been down from recent years.
In most countries, the epidemiologists’ original projections of expected
deaths from this disease have been radically revised downward. At
some point the mortality rate will have to undergo a similar radical
adjustment. Contrary to the lies of the health authorities and the
media, the official death count for COVID-19 is not too low but too
high. Even though the vast majority of people who have caught this
virus and died have had multiple other conditions that also contributed
to their demise these have all been classified as deaths from COVID-19.
If deaths from regular influenza were counted the same way the
mortality rate for the flu would be much higher than it is. Similarly,
the other number that goes into the mortality rate calculation is much
too low. Since a large number – as many as fifty percent some
estimates put it – of those who contract the virus are completely
asymptomatic, the total number known to have been infected is obviously
much, much, lower than the true number of infected. Indeed, when we
consider that international travel in and out of Hubei province was
allowed long after the initial outbreak began there – and long after Red
China shut down travel from that province to the rest of their own
country – during a period in which Western countries, sick with a
liberalism far more lethal than this virus, resisted imposing travel
restrictions on China, it is almost certain that the virus had made it
into all of our countries long before we noticed that it had arrived.
Since the potential lethality of this virus has been hugely exaggerated,
the extent to which the repugnant, totalitarian, Communistic measures
being taken almost everywhere are “saving lives” is also exaggerated.
In pointing this out I do not wish merely to throw water on those
currently engaged in a nauseating orgy of self-congratulatory,
backslapping, tripe over their efforts to save lives by sacrificing our
freedoms, but to contrast the low number of lives saved with the
potentially much higher number of lives endangered by the same measures.
While I am no fan of Karl Marx – Groucho is much more my style – and am
of the firm opinion that he was wrong about almost everything, there are
a few rare exceptions to this. One such exception was the sentence
with which he opened his letter to Louis Kugelmann on July 11, 1868.
He wrote “Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not
say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish.” With this
sentence he introduces an argument that is neither interesting nor
relevant to the subject at hand, but the sentence itself states an
obvious truth, one very similar to that which is found in the verses by
Rudyard Kipling quoted at the beginning of this essay.
The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus continues to be remembered to this
day for his theory about population size and the food supply. Human
beings, Malthus argued, can increase our food supply through improved
means of production, but if we do so the natural human response will be
an increase in reproduction. The increase in reproduction will be
faster and larger than the increase in food production so that the
growth in population size will exceed the increase to the food supply
and as a result there will be famine, poverty, starvation, disease and
death. His essay on the Principle of Population was first
published in 1798. He expanded and revised it in 1803, and published
several further editions with minor revisions before his death in 1834.
From that day to this, it has inspired several prophecies of doom, the
most famous of recent times being the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb
by Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich which predicted that hundreds of
millions of people would die in the 1970s from starvation due to
overpopulation. That, of course, did not happen.
There is obviously a flaw somewhere in Malthus’ theory. The question
is where. According to the popular Demographic Transition Model, first
developed by Warren Thomson in 1929, the problem is with his
understanding of human nature. According to this theory, as societies
progress towards industrialization they pass through stages and, after
they have achieved a certain level of industrial development, fertility
rates drop drastically and population size stabilizes. While the
demographic history of Western countries and other developed countries
such as Japan in the twentieth century would seem to bear this
interpretation out, explaining its having passed into conventional
wisdom, it has not gone without challenge. Dr. Virginia Deane
Abernethy of Vanderbilt University, for example, in her book Population Politics
(Transaction Books, 2000) gave several examples of empirical evidence
that goes against the theory, making the case that popular late
twentieth century progressive efforts to combat Third World
overpopulation and poverty with policies based upon the assumption of
the DTM, such as foreign relief and liberal immigration to the West as a
population safety valve, have not worked as the model would have
predicted but have, if anything, made the problem worse. The sharp
decline in fertility that developed countries have experienced since the
end of the post-World War II Baby Boom is better explained by other
aspects of the transition to modernity, such as a severe weakening of
the traditional idea that producing posterity is a duty we owe to our
ancestors, than by industrial prosperity itself.
The other leading explanation of the flaw in Malthus’ theory is that he
vastly underestimated our capacity to improve and increase the food
supply. This explanation is also borne out by the history of the
twentieth century and much more consistently than that of the DTM.
Now, if this explanation of what went wrong with the predictions based
upon Malthus’ theory is the correct one, and I believe it is, then what
could potentially happen when we have a global population of 7.8 billion
people and we shut down the economy all over the world, jeopardizing
out ability to produce food at this improved and increased capacity?
Why, lo and behold, we have just discovered where the potential for a
death rate as a high as the one in Stephen King’s book is to be found.
Yes, shutting down the economies of practically every country in the
world, is indeed a move that will put the food supply in jeopardy.
When those who produce and sell food are almost the only ones allowed to
be open they are essentially being asked or told to work for nothing,
for nobody else is producing anything with which to pay them. Yes,
governments are printing and handing out fiat money by the gazillions,
but money has no intrinsic value. Its role in the marketplace is to be
a convenient stand-in for real goods. The X number of dollars that
you pay someone for Y amount of magic beans, represents the cow that you
would have traded in a barter exchange. Perhaps that is a bad
example, because both beans and cattle are sources of food, but I think
it still gets the point across. If only category of producers are
allowed to actually produce anything for sale in the market, the
currency that is exchanged in that market will rapidly become worthless,
and those producers will become overburdened and start to fail. It
is estimated that nine million people in the world die from hunger every
year. It is responsible for half of the deaths of children under the
age of five. This is over three times the number of people known to
have been infected with COVID-19. It is about fifty times more than
the number who have died after contracting the virus. As of this
writing, the number who have died from hunger in 2020 so far is almost
three million. That’s about fifteen times the number who have died
after contracting COVID-19, whether the virus was the primary killer or
not. The measures being taken to combat COVID-19 will drive the number
who die from hunger up and by considerably more than they can bring the
number who die from COVID-19 down.
There are those who would say that this is the intentional and
deliberate true purpose of the global lockdown. I would not go that
far. The problem with the interpretation of events as being the
intended outcome of a very powerful and malevolent cabal is that it
requires assuming that politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, and the
like possess an almost superhuman level of competence. In reality,
these are people who think they are Sherlock Holmes, when they are
actually Jacques Clouseau – the Jacques Clouseau portrayed by Peter
Sellers in Blake Edwards’ Pink Panther films, not the version of the
character more recently portrayed by Steve Martin. Unlike the latter,
who is able to scrape together enough deductive reasoning to actually
solve the case by the end of his movies, Sellers’ classic
interpretation of this character was of a bumbling, clumsy, nincompoop
whose incompetence is matched only by his vanity and arrogance, and who
succeeds only through an extraordinary degree of sheer accidental luck.
That having been said, large scale global depopulation has been one of
the chief goals of the environmentalist wing of the United Nations and
its ultrawealthy backers like Bill Gates, George Soros, and the late
Maurice Strong since at least the 1992 “Earth Summit” at Rio de Janeiro
that produced the famous – or, depending upon your perspective, infamous
– action plan “Agenda 21.” These people represent the most extreme
version of one of the two distortions of Malthus that have been around
since his own day. While his detractors, like Victorian novelist
Charles Dickens, unjustly accused him of heartlessly wishing upon people
the famine, poverty, and death his theory predicted, his supporters,
especially those of more recent times, have advocated measures to combat
overpopulation that he himself would have found morally repugnant, such
as abortion, infanticide, and totalitarian state control of
reproduction. Those who want the world’s population reduced by as much
as eighty to ninety-five percent are the worst example of this sort.
The overlap between the institutions such as the United Nations and
individuals such as Bill Gates who advocate this radical agenda and
those behind the global lockdown is certainly worth taking note of.
Trevor Fleming is the latest free speech victim and victim of corporate cowardice. This Lululemon executive posted a link on Instagram to California artist Jess Sluder who designed a T-shirt featuring “bat fried rice.” Lululemon promptly fired him. The shirt’s a joke but the likely source of the Coronavirus pandemic were live bats kept at a filthy Wuhan wet market.
Dear Reader, Being
a book collector for many years I also have amassed a substantial
number of MSM Newspapers over past decades. This front page story in
British Columbia’s “Province” newspaper from October 21, 1999 is a prime
example of what we’re now going through globally as the controlled
media finally was able to come up with the Mother of all “viruses” story
in their attempt to terrorize and scare the shit out of everyone on the
planet. Over
twenty-one years ago they were already predicting a potential 51,000
deaths from a “predicted” global pandemic that could only be prevented
with a “new flu vaccine, made from fertilized chicken eggs.” We can see
now that the Gates’s and the WHO and the Fauci’s of the world have come a
long way from “fertilized chicken eggs”! One
of the more unsettling things about this massive hoax is how so many of
the population, for whatever reasons, are refusing to question the
narrative and simply succumbing to “social distancing” and “face masks”
and all the rest of the Orwellian regulations being set in place by the
criminals behind this incredible scam. Those working in the shadows
appear to have judged the make-up of the masses fairly well – at least
for the moment. How
long it will take before the resistance begins to manifest is anyone’s
guess. In the interim time I suggest that folks get out their old, worn
copies of The Monkey Wrench Gang and do a little refresher reading. Feel
free to share this story if you wish. I’m not under any “bail
conditions” at this time and who knows when the courts will be returning
to work. Continue to Question Authority and fight for Justice and Freedom, Sincerely, Arthur TophamPub/EdThe Radical Press“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”———-
51,000 of us coulddie in the flu pandemic
A top health official says up to 51,000 Canadians could die in a
global flu outbreak predicted to hit within 10 years if Canada can’t
quickly mass-produce a vaccine.
“We estimate that, if there’s not a vaccine available, that the next
pandemic will cause between 9,000 and 51,000 deaths in Canada,” Dr. John
Spika, director of infectious diseases at Health Canada’s Laboratory
Centre for Disease Control in Ottawa, said last night. “Obviously, one doesn’t want to be fear-mongering, but at the same time it’s something that one needs to prepare for.”
The prediction of a pandemic influenza outbreak sweeping the globe
within the next decade is based on data showing three to four flu
pandemics – each with a new virus to which no one has immunity – hit the
world every 100 years. Pandemics
occurred in 1892, 1918, 1957 and 1968. The pandemic of 1918-19 is
believed to have killed up to 40 million. The relatively mild virus of
the 1968 pandemic killed about 4,000 Canadians.
It’s estimated such a virus would take about three months to spread
to Canada from wherever it originates. The first peak of the disease
hitting the population would happen two to four months later. It takes a minimum of three months to produce the first lot of any new flu vaccine, made from fertilized chicken eggs.
So the virus would be infecting Canadians long before there was
enough vaccine to inoculate the entire population. It would take 10
months, using current vaccine production measures to vaccinate all
Canadians. Dr. Allison McGreer, director of infection control at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, asked:
“Do we really want to have 16 million fertilized eggs on hand at all
times, or is there some way we’re willing to take a little bit of hit
and not spend as much money up front?
“If we thought that the 1918-19 flu pandemic was around the corner,
then we would be right to be terrified, but that’s not likely to
happen.”– Southam News
If there is one positive thing that can be said about this terrible
plague we’re enduring, it is that now and then, it gives the Trudeau
government some really, really great ideas.
Sure it was only a
couple of weeks ago that the Liberals came up with the idea that they — a
minority in Parliament, remember — should give themselves the power to
tax and spend for the next two years, without having to get
parliamentary approval. It was a truly brilliant idea, except that it
ignored the fact that approving government spending is one of the most
important functions of Parliament. Take away its authority over spending
and the House of Commons might just as well be any old bingo hall, or
with a little imaginative renovation, a one-of-a-kind Costco store.
Now,
compliments of Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, we learned that
the Liberal government is contemplating legislation to make it an
offence to, as a CBC report put it, “knowingly spread misinformation
that could harm people.” In plain language, this government is openly
thinking of making itself the official censor of what can and cannot be
said about COVID-19. Pure brilliance again, don’t you agree?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, embraces Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc in 2019.
Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Well, actually, no. Don’t even think of it. Better still, to
borrow a phrase from Greta Thunberg: how dare you? There is already a
government that has that power, and in some cases brutally exercises it.
That is the government of the Communist Party of China.
And what
has it done with that power? It barred telling the truth about COVID-19,
and instead told lies about it. On the where it happened, when it
happened, how it happened and how it spread, the Chinese government
confounded, confused and lied about a plague that has now hobbled the
whole planet. And China “officially reprimanded” the doctor who
initially tried to warn people about the coronavirus, and who, with
dread irony, actually died from it. (A postmortem apology followed from
the government. That surely helped.) Admire the Chinese government if
that’s your thing, but on this subject, it is not an example to be
followed.
So, let’s tap this serpent of an idea on its little head
before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite. The problem
with government having control over what is said and written, completely
aside from it being the utter contradiction of a liberal democracy, is
that governments — especially on a matter such as this pandemic — are
simply not competent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
Legislators in the House of Commons convene to give the government power
to inject billions of dollars in emergency cash to help individuals and
businesses through the economic crunch caused by the coronavirus
disease outbreak, on Parliament Hill, April 11, 2020.
Blair Gable/Reuters
What is required for a government to pass a law against
misinformation? To begin with, it presumes an infallible authority
that’s able to make judgments on what is, or is not, correct
information. Even worse, it presumes the government has the ability to
make judgments on a matter that, incontestably, is not yet fully
understood by anybody.
This virus is new. The investigation of its
nature, transmission, the best policies to confront it, the extent of
the response to it, even the nature of the response — all of these
elements are, at best, in an incomplete and early stage of
understanding.
Experts have varying degrees of skill and
knowledge. If experts disagree, which happens often, will some of them
be silenced? In actuality, a divergence of opinions can be seen as a
path to the full truth emerging. But this cannot happen if the
government gags those who may seem to be wrong at the present moment.
A man wears a mask as he walks past a mural showing a modified image of
the Chinese Communist Party emblem, in Shanghai, on Jan. 28.
Aly Song/Reuters
On the purely political front, there are equal objections to
giving government censorship powers. Governments take to extensions of
their power like bears to honey. The more power they get, the more they
believe they alone should exercise it. Power swells the ego. Add more
power, and if you follow the analogy, a little balloon soon thinks it’s
the Hindenburg. And a government swollen with power does not like other
voices.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau barred the leader of the Opposition from joining talks
with other opposition leaders because, in Trudeau’s own memorable words,
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer “disqualified himself from
constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today.”
Yet
it is not for Trudeau, or any other prime minister, to determine what
is “acceptable speech” from his constitutionally positioned critic, the
leader of the Opposition. Nor is it proper for this minority government,
which has had enough struggles of its own over misinformation — on
masks, on screening at airports, on our relative security from the
pandemic — to decide what the rest of us can, and cannot, say or write
about this unique crisis.
Marni Soupcoff: Don’t make free speech the next COVID-19 victim in Canada
As we have seen with this pandemic, the government doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a monopoly on the truth
It’s not difficult to imagine productive things the Canadian
government could be doing to respond to a virus that has caused more
than 1,000 deaths in the country, infected tens of thousands of
Canadians, and shut down the economy.
Passing a law dictating what people can and cannot say about SARS-CoV-2 is not one of those things.
The
government could be using its power to secure personal protective
equipment for health-care workers, facilitate an increase in testing
capacity, and clear regulatory red tape that stands in the way of
efficient vaccine research.
There is no question these steps could
be helpful, and they are just three examples of many. Then, why oh why
are federal politicians instead using their time to make plans to censor
online expression about a pandemic that could use more creative ideas,
not fewer.
Why are federal politicians using their time to make plans to censor online expression?
A sample of what Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc
has to say on the matter of criminalizing the online spread of ideas
the government deems dangerously untrue: “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.”
Realizing that the people running the country believe that
freedom of speech doesn’t apply — even as a consideration — in cases
where they don’t like the speech in question … well, it’s scary,
especially in the middle of a frightening crisis that makes government
power grabs seem deceptively innocuous.
It sounds great to crack
down on dangerous “cranks” pushing “disinformation.” Until you realize
that a couple of months ago, anyone who was suggesting COVID-19 could
and would spread through community transmission here — a notion Canadian
public health leaders were scoffing at — would have been considered
such a “crank.” Just a couple of weeks ago, anyone stating that wearing a
mask in public was useful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 would also
have been deemed a crackpot by the feds’ standards. Thankfully Mr.
LeBlanc hadn’t yet come up with a law that would have shut them up.
Dominic LeBlanc is embraced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after being
sworn in as President of the Privy Council in Ottawa on Nov. 20, 2019.
Blair Gable/Reuters
As we have seen with this pandemic, the government doesn’t
have a monopoly on the truth — it’s barely competent enough to recognize
the truth when the truth is hitting it on the head. Do you really want
that entity to have the power to decide which ideas about COVID-19 are
valid and may be voiced and which ones are wrong and must be punished?
It’s
not necessary to imagine, in the abstract, what sort of damage this
kind of censorship would do. The scenario has already played out in
China.
In December 2019, ophthalmologist Li Wenliang tried to
sound the alarm in China about a mysterious new virus that was causing
SARS-like symptoms. Within days, he was picked up by police and
reprimanded for “making false comments on the Internet.” He died of
COVID-19 six weeks later.
The scenario has already played out in China
A recent report by researchers at the Citizen Lab
at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public
Policy showed that a day after Chinese doctors issued their warning
about the illness, China’s most widely used social media app, WeChat,
quickly blacklisted related terms, including “SARS outbreak in Wuhan”
and “Unknown Wuhan pneumonia.” (WeChat doesn’t have a lot of competition
since the Chinese government blocks access to Facebook and Twitter.)
While
the deadly disease was spreading through China’s Hubei province, WeChat
was censoring instructions and advice about wearing face masks and
washing hands — information that would have saved lives but was deemed
fake news by Chinese authorities at the time.
Doubtless it is
obvious that this is an example Canada should not follow. One man’s
whistleblower is another man’s havoc-wreaking conspiracy theorist.
Allowing one of those men to impose criminal penalties on the other is a
damaging way to deal with the difference.
A lone person walks past closed businesses in Toronto’s Kensington Market on April 15, 2020.
Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press
It is true that there are scammers out there taking
advantage of the fear generated by the pandemic, trying to make a buck
by posing as people or institutions they aren’t.
But it is also true that there are already laws on the books to punish and prevent this foul flavour of fraud.
Don’t
add on a new law that will leave skeptics — a group that has grown in
number as the government’s flubbed response to COVID-19 has become
evident — even more distrustful of government than they already are.
This is
a matter of free speech. And during a pandemic, free speech and the
unimpeded flow of information can mean the difference between life and
death.
Let’s hope the federal government finds safer ways to keep itself busy.