Canadian, Irish, French Government-Attempted Speech Regulations Appear Like Desperate Censorship Power Plays
BY JEFFEREY JAXEN | MARCH 12, 2024
Following in the footsteps of UKs highly controversial Online Safety Act, now law, Canadian and Irish government officials are proposing legislation that would push the boundaries to further stifle online debate.
During the COVID response, the American government chose to erect a massive, top-down censorship industrial complex pulling in key White House officials, CDC heads, and the Department of Homeland Security.
In the UK, it was all-out military psychological operations using the British Army unit’s 77th Brigade and Specialist Group Military Intelligence. Both countries turned their security apparatuses, once used against foreign enemy combatants, to target its own public domestically in an aggressive move to shape public thought and neutralize independent voices.
Now, humanity is at an inflection point. A non-stop blitzkrieg of contentious issues are affecting the lives of many. The failed COVID response taught us that open conversation and investigation is critical to unwind industry talking points, government propaganda, and scientific falsehoods.
Perhaps more important, the new public square, that is the digital age of social media, serves as a steam valve to debate valid concerns surrounding charged issues like climate change and the net zero push, open migration, vaccine safety, reckless government monetary policy, election meddling, the surgical and pharmaceutical fast track of gender-affirming care for minors, intelligence agency run ‘disclosure,’ and so much more.
Meanwhile, power centers are desperate to take all the above issues and funnel vocal detractors from the dominant narrative into one category – hate.
Over the years, governments have gleefully began attaching the ‘hate’ label onto any person, topic, or explanation that runs counter to the single, myopic version of events, ideas, information, or even historical events they deem fact – despite valid evidence proving otherwise.
Socially, the ‘it’s all hateful except for our viewpoint’ worked for corporations, governments, and legacy media operations when they enjoyed narrative control.
Those days are fleeting now and major cracks have formed upon once-settled topics. Now we see the grip tightening from the legislative angle to create more bureaucracy and new powers to punish.
Canada’s Bill C-63 enacts what’s called the Online Harms Act, amends the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act among other things. It also attempts to define and legislate a human emotion stating:
“hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”
Meanwhile, C-63 states that an “Offense motivated by hatred… under this Act or any other Act of Parliament”…carries with a penalty of “imprisonment for life.”
Other goodies written into the bill are the creation of an extrajudicial government tribunal to rule on complaints of threats, intimidation or discrimination from people who can remain anonymous. That’s right, no need to face your accuser says Canada.
If one is accused by the government’s newly-created, extrajudicial group to be “engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice,” they can be ordered, as the bill states, “to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim identified” and “to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General.”
No room for abuse here. What could go wrong?
One would think this would be a one-off piece of speech-chilling legislation from a country that has lost its way under poor leadership. Yet Ireland is also attempting a similar move with mirrored legislative language.
Ireland’s Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill is currently before the upper house of the Irish legislature. The Critic writes the law, if enacted, “…would usher in a dangerous new standard for state-driven censorship. The expression or possession of content or even ideas deemed “hateful” would be illegal under the law, with serious implications for everyday people…”
An opinion piece published in The Hill writes:
“As per the tentative legislation, people with “protected characteristics” which includes, inter alia, race, color, and nationality are afforded new legal protections against psychical and mentally inflicted harms, in which offenders are motivated by “hatred.””
It continues by stating:
“As such, Ireland’s police force, An Garda Síochána, will have the authority under the bill to raid the home of the possessor of such material, demand their password and seize their devices. Failure to comply could result in a year-long prison sentence.”
The reason for the sudden Orwellian about face given by Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar was that Ireland needed to “… modernise our laws against incitement to hatred and hatred in general.”
Despite the weak cover stories governments are using to capture speech and attempt to regain narrative control, a clear pattern is being seen – open debate is dangerous to the dwindling control of power centers.
The fun doesn’t stop there.
Article 18 of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty also stipulates that all countries signed on to the power-centralizing agreement are mandated to “… combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” and “inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions.”
Finally, a bill in the works in France appears to be a special gift for pharmaceutical companies. Article 4 of the bill specifically states:
Provocation, by means of repeated pressure or maneuvers, of any person suffering from a pathology to abandon or abstain from following medical treatment is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros. therapeutic or prophylactic, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the person concerned whereas it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to cause for them, taking into account the pathology of which they is affected, particularly serious consequences for their physical or psychological health.
As written, it appears that any criticism of vaccine products, SSRIs, statins, opioids, drugs and procedures used to transition children, or just about any other product or medical practice that has debatable concerns and unsettled science surrounding it – if currently accepted in ‘medical knowledge’ – is a protected class not to be spoken ill about.
“When the provocation provided for in the first two paragraphs has been followed by effects, the penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.” states the proposed French law.
The coincidental timing over the past few years of several pieces of legislation whose effect will be to essentially chill freedom of speech in the end equation must be taken seriously. The good news is that individuals at all levels of society are sounding the alarm to critically analyze and reject all attempts at overarching control over basic human rights – no matter how well packaged and intentioned they may initially seem.
Harvard Fires Professor Who Co-wrote Great Barrington Declaration
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 12, 2024
Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., an epidemiologist and professor of Medicine at Harvard University, on Monday confirmed the university fired him.
Kulldorff has been a critic of lockdown policies, school closures and vaccine mandates since early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, he published the Great Barrington Declaration, along with co-authors Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., and Stanford epidemiologist and health economist Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D.
In an essay published Monday in City Journal, Kulldorff wrote that his anti-mandate position got him fired from the Mass General Brigham hospital system, where he also worked, and consequently from his Harvard faculty position.
Kulldorff detailed how his commitment to scientific inquiry put him at odds with a system that he alleged had “lost its way.”
“I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard,” Kulldorff wrote. “The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired.”
He noted that it was clear from early 2020 that lockdowns would be futile for controlling the pandemic.
“It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health,” Kulldorff wrote.
“We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world — all will suffer.”
That viewpoint got little debate in the mainstream media until the epidemiologist and his colleagues published the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by nearly 1 million public health professionals from across the world.
The document made clear that no scientific consensus existed for lockdown measures in a pandemic. It argued instead for a “focused protection” approach for pandemic management that would protect high-risk populations, such as elderly or medically compromised people, and otherwise allow the COVID-19 virus to circulate among the healthy population.
Although the declaration merely summed up what previously had been conventional wisdom in public health, it was subject to tremendous backlash. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health called for a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration and of the authors, who were subsequently slandered in mainstream and social media.
Collins and other figures, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky who would go on to head up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic, sought to undermine their credibility, Kulldorff wrote.
His tweets contradicting CDC policy that people with natural immunity must be vaccinated were flagged by the Virality Project, a government front group, and censored by Twitter.
“At this point, it was clear that I faced a choice between science or my academic career,” Kulldorff wrote. “I chose the former. What is science if we do not humbly pursue the truth?”
Kulldorff said he was also fired from the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group because he disagreed with the decision to completely pause the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus COVID-19 vaccine after a safety signal was detected for blood clots in women under 50.
He spoke out in op-eds and social media to argue the Johnson & Johnson shot should remain available for older Americans alongside the Pfizer and Moderna shots — the only other shots available in the U.S. market.
While Kulldorff’s arguments advocating the Johnson & Johnson vaccines may be flawed, investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote today on his Substack, Kulldorff’s story reveals a “more powerful truth.”
“He found out the hard way that there is no crossing the tracks of the institutional freight train that is the Big Pharma-Government Health system of institutional capture that persists in America today,” Schachtel wrote.
“He threatened the gravy train that produced hundreds of billions of lawsuit-protected taxpayer dollars that were making their way to Pfizer and Moderna,” Schachtel added. “And for that sin, he was swiftly removed from his role on the CDC working group.”
Harvard also denied Kulldorff’s vaccine exemption requests. He publicly opposed the Harvard mandates and pushed for the university to rehire those who were fired and to eliminate its mandate for students.
The university last week dropped its COVID-19 mandate for students.
“Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders,” Kulldorff concluded. “Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.”
To right the wrongs that have been done, he said, the broader scientific community must restore academic freedom and end “cancel culture.”
“Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it,” he wrote. “The scientific community will gradually lose public support and slowly disintegrate in such a culture.”
Harvard Medical School did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Biden’s ‘Nighttime in America’ State of the Union
By Ron Paul | Institute for Peace and Prosperity | March 11, 2024
Last week President Biden delivered a dark and angry speech meant to convince the low percentage of Americans who still feel positive about his presidency that everything is fine and will only get better if he is re-elected for a second term.
Unfortunately we have come a long way from the optimism of a Ronald Reagan, who won a second term partially on the popularity of his “Morning in America” campaign commercials. Reagan was far from a perfect president, but it was that sense of optimism in otherwise difficult times that resulted in a record re-election victory. Biden’s speech, by contrast, was dark and angry, attacking not only his political opponents but even seeming to threaten the Supreme Court!
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley observed recently, “In some ways, the State of the Union speech may have died when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up the address of former President Donald Trump… While many in the media celebrated her lack of decorum and respect, she tore up something far more important than a speech. She shredded decades of tradition of civility and any remaining residue of restraint in our politics.”
We seem to be becoming a nation that would rather scream at each other than listen to each other.
The message of Biden’s speech was that if you do not support the re-election of Joe Biden, you are an insurrectionist and hate America and democracy. Seven years after the launch of the “Russiagate” hoax against then-candidate Donald Trump, it becomes clearer that the line “our democracy” means it’s only democratic when their side gets elected.
It is understandable that Biden is so angry. Despite all the lying with statistics about the economy, Americans can clearly see for themselves how inflation is undermining the standard of living. Of course this is not all Biden’s fault – Republicans in control of the House show little interest in cutting spending – but people generally blame the president for the state of the economy.
We are no better off on foreign policy either. President Biden started his speech by comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin with Hitler, claiming that Putin is “on the march” in Europe just as Hitler was in 1941, and that just as in those days, if he is not stopped in Ukraine he will continue to rampage through the continent. It was blatant fearmongering, based on no evidence. In fact, as Putin told Tucker Carlson just weeks ago, he has no interest in taking the war beyond Ukraine. But Biden is determined to spend another $61 billion on the failed proxy war in Ukraine and he is willing to say whatever he feels necessary to get that money.
Biden also introduced a bizarre plan to build a temporary pier on the shores of Gaza so that the US could deliver aid to starving Palestinians. Considering the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of missiles we have shipped to Israel, wouldn’t it just be easier to inform the Israeli prime minister that we would either be delivering aid to Palestinians over land, or else?
In all, Biden’s final State of the Union before the election reveals a president and administration that is out of gas and out of ideas. It also reveals a country deep in bankruptcy – both moral and economic. It is high time for a nationwide movement toward liberty.
New York’s Attorney General Makes A Fool Of The Governor
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | March 2, 2024
Two weeks ago, on February 16, in a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court issued his decision ordering Donald Trump to pay some $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The stated basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief; however, the Attorney General asserted, and the judge agreed, that a legal basis existed for imposing the penalties under New York’s Executive Law Section 63(12), which allows the AG to prosecute “persistent fraud or illegality” without need for showing traditional elements of fraud like intent and damages, let alone a victim.
The issuance of Justice Engoron’s decision brought forth an immediate reaction from many quarters (Manhattan Contrarian ). James had campaigned for office on a platform of “getting Trump,” a major political adversary, and had sought and obtained penalties far larger than any previously awarded under this statute, for conduct far less egregious. If the AG can use a broad statute to target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump in this way, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?
Recognizing the problem, our lightweight Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. RealClearPolitics on February 19 has an audio clip and a partial transcript of Governor Hochul’s remarks. The key line was that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
Law-abiding New Yorkers “have nothing to worry about”? Really, Governor Hochul? AG James waited all of ten days before making a complete fool of Hochul. On February 28 James dropped her latest over-the-top politicized case. The new target is something called JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef. Here is the AG’s press release announcing the filling of the case; and here is a copy of the Complaint.
The crazed and delusional ambition evidenced in this case is even wilder than what was just seen in the Trump case. This time we’re not just going to keep a hated politician out of office; we’re going to save the planet!
From the press release:
JBS USA has claimed that it will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, despite documented plans to increase production, and therefore increase its carbon footprint. Beef production emits the most greenhouse gasses of any major food commodity, and animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. In 2021, the JBS Group, JBS USA’s global parent company, reported total global greenhouse gas emissions of over 71 million tons, more than the total emissions of some countries. Attorney General James seeks to stop JBS USA from continuing these false and misleading marketing practices, pay disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits, and penalties.
The heart of the alleged “fraud” is JBS’s claim that it plans to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. From Complaint, paragraphs 6 and 7:
6. Across its marketing materials, the JBS Group has made sweeping representations to consumers about its commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that it will be “Net Zero by 2040.”
7. The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”
And from there, this case then turns into Trump 2.0. They have learned how to do this in the Trump case and they are following the form. Like the Trump case, this case is at least in theory civil, rather than criminal. The main legal basis? You guessed it — Executive Law Section 63(12). And the main relief sought? You guessed it again — “disgorgement.” Hey, if they can draw Engoron as the judge they might get an order requiring JBS to “disgorge” all of its revenues for the last 20 years. This time it will be in the multi-billions of dollars. That’ll teach them!
And so, Governor Hochul, is there anything “extraordinary and unusual” about JBS? Definitely not, any more than there was about Trump. Surely now every other beef company is in line for the same treatment, and every other food company right after that. And why stop there? Every company that has made any kind of promises of “net zero” by some far out date will be an obvious target. That’s a very large numbers of companies. And even the ones who haven’t promised “net zero” have almost always made some kind of promise of greenhouse gas reductions, none of which are achievable in the real world.
And guess what entity has made the most extreme promises of “net zero” that can’t possibly be met? That would be the State of New York. As discussed here in many prior posts (examples here, here and here), New York in 2019 adopted a Climate Act, committing the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan supposedly laying out how we are going to get there. But the Scoping Plan is completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. It’s just like the delusional JBS promises!
So, Attorney General James, when are you going to bring your case under Executive Law 63(12) against New York State? I think you should demand “disgorgement” back to the taxpayers of all taxes paid at least since 2019, when they started making these fraudulent promises.
Meanwhile, it is high time for the business and legal communities of New York to start calling out our Attorney General for completely politicizing and degrading her office. You corporate CEOs and law firm leaders — do you think that if you just lie low the crocodile will eat you last? Your tolerance of this politicized AG is completely shameful.
The Poisoning
Thou shall…
Lies are Unbekoming | March 10, 2024
Thou shall be poisoned.
My estimate points to 1 in 20 injections going IV accidentally. By that account, 670 million people worldwide would have been harmed, to a degree or another. And studies of accidental IV injections suggest that 127 million people have been harmed clinically.
Thou shall poison others.
There is a saying in military circles: once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. I have no doubt that given an hour, the people on this panel could point to a hundred examples of the pattern I have just described, while finding even a handful of exceptions would pose a significant challenge.
–
The CDC has become an excellent guide to protecting your health, but only for people who realize you should do the opposite of whatever it advises.
Thou shall disguise The Poisoning.
Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
–
There is no treatment. Despite PSSD being in the medical records since the ‘90s, patients are rarely warned of the risk. A risk thought to be 1 in 216.
–
In fact, according to this Stonewall report, more Gen Z Brits identify as asexual (5%) than gay (2%) or lesbian (3%).
Thou shall not tell the truth about The Poisoning.
And it is still happening. We are being surveilled and censored. We are being bullied and browbeat. We are goaded, taxed, nudged, and forced into accepting that which we do not want, whether it is EVs or CBDCs or mRNA. These efforts started with the rejection of science in favor of myth and the myths are still governing the world.
Whatever else we can say about these astonishing developments, this much we can pronounce. We were wrong to trust the authorities. We were wrong to put faith in leaders. We were wrong to look to the universities, the media, and journals, and the experts generally. They failed us. They lied to us.
Thou shall silence those that wish to tell the truth about The Poisoning.
In a world where ‘equity’ is the catch-cry of corporatists accumulating unprecedented wealth, the return of colonialism should not surprise. Colonialism, after all, brings great benefits to those whom it disempowers and pillages. Success requires a highly centralized approach to achieve mass control, restricting freedom ‘for the greater good’ whilst silencing those who disagree.
Thou shall target The Poisoning at The Spirit and Connection.
The introduction of fluoride into the drinking water supply in the 1950s caused perturbations in this social magnetic field (calcifying the pineal gland amongst other harms).
The introduction of mass vaccination campaigns caused further disruptions of the magnetic field thus throwing confusion into the relationships between people.
The widespread use of SSRI’s starting in the early 1990s and the vast deployment of electromagnetic fields for wireless (mobile phone) communication expanded this assault on the social magnetic field.
Over time the field weakened.
In 2019/2020 we got hit with a triple whammy — the release of SARS-CoV-2, the largest propaganda campaign in history, and the rollout of 5G. By this point, most progressives no longer had a working moral compass because the social magnetic field that formerly guided them was gone. They no longer felt a connection with the poor, working class, or the disadvantaged. The subaltern was objectified and viewed as unclean. The working class was turned into delivery drivers so that the laptop class could continue on with their Elysium lifestyle.
–
I argue that this disconnection is what happened to all knowledge production fields as a result of the waves of mass poisonings over the last seventy-five years.
Thou shall recruit and develop The Stupid, as they are the necessary soldiers of The Poisoning.
Stupidity is an obnoxious, frustrating and yet very constant and obtrusive feature of the systems that rule us. I emphasise this quality because I think the accent of much dissident commentary is too much on the malicious, authoritarian and often evil nature of government in the West. Don’t misunderstand me. The powers that be are very bad too, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that their collective actions and statements are often just astoundingly dumb. Probably never in the history of humanity has stupidity been so abundant, and so apparently ineradicable, as it is now.
Thou shall make your living by poisoning.
With the world turning full circle, post-World War Two concepts of human rights, equality, and local agency are exiting the international stage. The veiled colonialism currently dressed up as vaccine equity looks like a bunch of colonial bureaucrats forcing their sponsors’ wares on those with less power, whilst building policies to ensure this imbalance remains. Malnutrition, infectious disease, child marriage, and generational poverty are side issues to the East India Pharma and Software Company’s bottom lines. This will stop when those being colonized once again unite and refuse to comply. In the meantime, the enablers could open their eyes and understand who they are working for.
Thou shall poison the poisoned.
Which terrifies me given the surge in SSRI prescriptions among Gen Z. In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000. That’s kids taking drugs known to cause sexual dysfunction—drugs that the Royal College of Psychiatrists admits to using to castrate sex offenders—right during puberty.
–
This seems especially true for girls and young women. In the US, 86% of those identifying as asexual are female, and 91% are aged between 18 to 27. Which is also the demographic with some of the fastest-rising rates in the use of mental health medication. Women and adults aged 18 to 29 in America have the highest rates of current depression or depression treatment. Women are also twice as likely to take antidepressants than men.
Thou shall profit from poisoning the poisoned.
These are all in the top 20 blockbuster drugs in the world.
Then there is Risperdal for autism, Ritalin for ADHD, and Epi pens for severe allergic reactions, and these drugs generate several billion dollars a year in revenue as well.
What most people don’t realize is that these are all treatments for vaccine injuries. The childhood vaccine schedule creates customers for life.
Thou shall receive the wealth of the poisoned.
My specialty is modeling the costs of autism. A study I conducted with Mark Blaxill and Cynthia Nevison showed about $300 billion a year in current costs rising to over a trillion dollars a year in costs by the early 2030s and $5.5 trillion a year by 2060.
The costs of autism will cause the economic and political collapse of the United States in our lifetime.
Thou shall not punish The Poisoning.
As for the producer side, it hasn’t been truly free since 1910. That’s when the so-called Flexner Report came out to push for an allopathic cartel that came to control medical schools, driving up the price of services through a credentialing racket, while blocking alternative forms of care. The wisdom of the ages was toast.
As for pharma, it has not operated in a free market for nearly half a century. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed private companies to keep “intellectual property”—a wholly unnecessary monopoly—and pay patent royalties to government agencies, thus integrating the two sectors in a financial racket.
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was also a catastrophe, allowing mass distribution of untested products on people who have no recourse when they go wrong. The PREP Act of 2006 expanded that to all medical countermeasures used in an emergency.
Thou shall punish those that prevent The Poisoning.
On February 14, the French National Assembly passed article 223-1-2 du code pénal. Contained therein, in Article 4 of that law, Robert Kogon writes:
Article 4 introduces a new crime into the French penal code: incitation to abandon or refrain from medical treatment or to adopt a would-be treatment, if, “in the current state of medical knowledge”, doing so “clearly” may cause harm to the person or persons in question. This crime is made punishable by one year in prison and a fine of €30,000 (£26,000) or, if the “incitation” has effect, i.e. the medical advice is followed, three years in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£39,000).
In effect, this is an extreme gag order on physicians, other health care personnel, and indeed anyone who dares speak out against official medical orthodoxy. In terrifyingly broad wording, it criminalizes – with hard time and crippling fines – advising against the received medical wisdom, even if the advice is not followed.
It does not take a doctor, lawyer, or medical ethicist to imagine the effect this will have on medical practice. Put simply, this law will destroy the doctor-patient relationship.
The UK Government Is Considering a New, Looser Definition of “Extremism”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 9, 2024
The authorities in the UK are continuing with attempts to broaden the definition of “extremism” and behavior deemed as “undermining/overturning” British values.
Critics say the whole wiggly thing is the road to authoritarianism.
A new step said to be in that direction is a proposal presented by Communities Secretary Michael Gove, who is reportedly using previous initiatives to usher in a new definition of extremism.
Likely to cover all political and ideological bases, Gove is mentioning both “Islamists” and “far Right” organizations and their harmful activities that slip under the radar as the reason the current understanding of extremism is “too narrow.”
But there doesn’t seem to be consensus on this in the cabinet, with some ministers voicing fears that a lot of groups taking a stance on several issues – such as those opposed to lockdowns, religious organizations that are anti-abortion, gay marriage, trans-gender women in places designated as same-sex, “radical” student groups, etc. – could get caught up in this widened “definition dragnet.”
The problem with that is that these groups are now operating lawfully, according to the Equality Act 2010.
And if the definition is also made enforceable, even political parties, such as the Scottish National Party, could end up on the wrong side of the new rules, reports say.
Right now, extremism in the UK is defined (since 2011) as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This definition is not statutory, which means it effectively prevents only the government and other administrative bodies from working with or funding such groups.
But Gove wants to “fix” this by making the broader definition statutory.
To achieve this, the current paragraph would get this addition:
“The promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalization, hate crime and terrorism.”
Rather than just “broader,” this reads as straight-up and worrisomely vague.
And when some political representatives, MPs among them, try to wrap their heads around the very concept of “British values,” it becomes clear that the conundrum of defining such things in a way acceptable to everyone becomes mission impossible.
“What does it even mean to undermine British values’ when there is no consensus – and certainly no legal definition – of what those values are?,” MP Miriam Cates summed it up.
CANADA THREATENS LIFE SENTENCES FOR “HATRED”
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 7, 2024
Canada’s proposed bill, C-63, lays out liberty-crushing, due process annihilating terms for ill-defined thought crimes such as ‘fear of hate propaganda.’ Meanwhile, Ireland has a similar bill as the public is seeing a hidden hand crafting legislation aimed to disrupt society.
New Law Would Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Deaths
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 6, 2024
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.
The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act, would “allow Americans who took vaccines that were misleadingly promoted and forced onto many Americans via federal mandates to pursue civil litigation for their injuries,” according to a summary of the bill publicized by Fox News.
“These vaccines were given emergency use authorization unilaterally and did not go through the normal FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval process,” the summary stated.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:
“The damages and fatalities caused by the COVID-19 vaccine demand accountability. This legislation represents a critical milestone in rectifying these injustices and paving the way for a more accountable future. This legislation is crucial for holding vaccine manufacturers accountable.”
CHD is among the organizations supporting the legislation.
According to Roy’s office, “COVID-19 vaccines are considered ‘countermeasures’ under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, which broadly shields their manufacturers from civil liability related to losses stemming from the vaccines.”
“Instead, injured Americans must seek relief under the onerous Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) — but only 11 COVID-19-related claims have been paid out of CICP.”
Holland said the CICP is “wholly inadequate and inconsistent with constitutional principles in providing just redress.”
The proposed legislation would remove all federal liability protections for the COVID-19 vaccine, preserve the ability of injured Americans to access pre-existing compensation programs, such as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and would be retroactive, allowing Americans vaccinated and injured before the bill’s passage to sue.
In a statement, Roy said, “The long train of abuses committed by the government and public health establishment in response to COVID-19 will continue to impact the American people for years to come.”
As a result, Roy said he is “introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.”
React19, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of vaccine injury victims, also welcomed the proposed legislation. Dr. Joel Wallskog, a Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon who no longer practices due to injuries he sustained from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, is co-chair of the organization. He told The Defender:
“React19 supports the LIABLE Act. The COVID-19 public health emergency ended in 2023. Despite this, pharmaceutical companies, the government, and health care organizations are still protected from all liability through the PREP Act until at least Dec. 31, 2024.
“This blanket immunity provided by the PREP Act robs the American public injured by the COVID-19 shots of their right to due process and jury trial. We are relegated to CICP, which is an obvious failure.”
‘Hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary’
According to Fox News, the PREP Act “limits liability for the manufacturing, development and distribution of medical countermeasures related to a public health emergency.” COVID-19 vaccines were distributed in the U.S. on this basis.
In turn, the PREP Act created CICP, “which has a one-year statute of limitations and only provides compensation in the event of death or serious injury,” Fox News reported. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers “are mostly immune from civil lawsuits, even if those seeking money damages have medical proof of their vaccine-related injuries.”
“Millions of Americans were forced to take a COVID-19 shot out of fear of losing their livelihoods and under false pretenses,” Roy told Fox News on Tuesday, contrasting the 11 claims compensated by CICP with the 700 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which have been administered in the U.S.
Wallskog said CICP “has a 98% denial rate” and, as of Jan. 1, has issued a total “of about $41,000” for the 11 claims it has compensated — an average of approximately $3,700 per claim.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for CHD, is an expert on the PREP Act and CICP. He told The Defender he “would be thrilled” to see PREP Act manufacturer protection removed. “Someday, hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary,” Flores said.
Flores noted that U.S. government guarantees made to vaccine manufacturers early during the pandemic prohibited the government from “using or authorizing COVID-19 vaccine” unless they were “protected from liability under a declaration issued under the PREP Act, or a successor COVID-19 PREP Act declaration of equal or greater scope.”
“If this bill proceeds, this will be the battleground,” Flores said.
Lawsuits will help determine if COVID vaccines were as ‘safe and effective’ as claimed
Big Pharma did not welcome the proposed legislation. In a statement shared with Fox News, Andrew Powaleny, senior director of public affairs for PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], an industry trade group, said:
“COVID-19 has been a reminder of why we need safe and effective vaccines. All vaccines, including those for COVID-19, are subject to a rigorous safety and efficacy review process and post-market monitoring.
“By upending the existing liability framework manufacturers rely upon to provide predictable vaccine development, our ability to address future public health threats will be at risk.”
But other experts disagreed. Writing Tuesday in The Blaze, commentator and author Daniel Horowitz asked, “Should a product that is completely funded, marketed, monopolized, and then mandated by government be less liable than Toyota is for its airbags?”
Horowitz added, “Ideally, the NCVIA [the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986] and the PREP Act should be repealed entirely.”
Still, he welcomed Roy’s proposed legislation. “Giving consumers their day in court will be the perfect way to sort out whether Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products are as safe and effective as they claim,” he wrote.
“It’s highly likely that tens of millions of people are currently without recourse for compensation from a product that was fraudulently foisted upon the American people by these companies in collusion with the federal government,” Horowitz said. “Knowing that, Roy’s bill comes as welcome relief.”
According to Fox News, “Roy has led the charge against those vaccine mandates, including leading efforts to roll back COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the U.S. military.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Bob Good (R-Va.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Barry Moore (R-Utah), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Americans injured by the COVID-19 shots deserve better,” Wallskog said. “They did what they thought was the right thing for themselves, their families and the nation. Now, they are left abandoned. This legislation gives them a chance at fair and just compensation.”
“The time has come for our nation to recognize these injuries and allow them legal recourse,” he added.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Pre-crime: Canada’s Justice Minister defends “Online Harms Bill” powers to place people under house arrest, cut internet access
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 5, 2024
Canada is facing stiff competition from many countries around the world, some of them labeled as “authoritarian,” in the race to institutionalize and normalize, and write into law, some distinctly dystopian concepts, like “pre-crime.”
And unfortunately for Canada’s democracy, its government seems to be doing very well in this aspect.
Justice Minister and Attorney General Arif Virani is currently defending a bizarre provision contained in the country’s “online harms” (C-63) bill that allows the authorities to place people under house arrest out of “fear” they could, at some point in the future, commit a “hate crime.”
Alternatively, citizens singled out in this way will be made to wear a tracking device – an electronic tag.
“Awful and unlawful” is how critics might describe the bill, which, judging by the minister’s comments, the government wants to rush through the parliament. However, Virani is trying to put a positive spin on it by suggesting it is some kind of democratic breakthrough that finds a balance that allows “awful but lawful” content to be kept online.
Meanwhile, what about the people who post it? Some of them will be kept at home or surveilled around the clock, which is the sum total of the provision. And Virani – who, in his role as attorney general, along with a judge, will be the one to decide who qualifies for this treatment – sees nothing wrong with any of it.
“(If) there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things,” Virani said of the “suspected future suspects.”
In Canada, according to the Criminal Code, a peace bond is issued “when a person appears likely to commit a criminal offense, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has actually been committed.”
Virani explained that such a peace bond could impose restrictions on people approaching “a synagogue or a mosque” (presumably, also a church). Or, their use of the internet, but also somehow behavior could get “restricted,” he continued.
“That would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently, sometimes fatally,” said the official.
C-63 also seeks to introduce the life sentence for those who commit “a hate crime offense” along with another type of crime.
Such is the messaging and the climate created by this type of legislation that the Canadian press finds it necessary to reassure people while reporting about C-63’s life imprisonment provision, that it will not apply in cases of “mischief to a garage door.”
But if it did – one might be amazed, but at this point in time, hardly surprised.
CHD Urges Vermont Lawmakers to Reject Bill That Would Allow Kids 12 and Under to Consent to HPV Vaccines
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | March 5, 2024
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) last week submitted written testimony to the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee opposing a proposed bill that would allow children as young as 12 to receive certain vaccines — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — without parental knowledge or consent.
Senate Bill S.151 states on page 1 that it “proposes to allow a minor 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care for the prevention of a sexually transmitted infection.” The bill does not specifically mention vaccines.
However, according to CHD’s New England Chapter, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Planned Parenthood and other groups that want to offer confidential preventative services to minors — including HPV vaccines, hepatitis vaccines, HIV PrEP pills and other products — are lobbying for the bill.
In their testimony, CHD President Mary Holland and General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg argued that HPV vaccines have never been proven to prevent cancer, that the vaccines have caused significant injuries and that bypassing parental consent violates federal law.
They also questioned whether minors could reasonably be expected to understand the potential long-term health risks of these vaccines.
In their testimony, Holland and Rosenberg, authors of “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation Betrayed,” wrote:
“Teens … understandably may not want to have children immediately but do they want to risk not having any children in the future? If they do not know the real risks and the minimal (if any) potential benefits of HPV vaccines, can they give informed consent?”
CHD urged the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee to withdraw S.151. CHD’s New England Chapter recommended Vermonters take immediate action to help defeat the bill.
Evidence for HPV vaccines preventing cancer questioned
CHD’s testimony challenged the claim that HPV vaccines have been proven to prevent cancer, arguing that there is no conclusive evidence to support this assertion.
Holland and Rosenberg cited government data showing the cancer rate for the youngest, most vaccinated women increased between 2011 and 2019 to the same level as when the vaccines were first introduced.
They also cited evidence from the National Cancer Institute, which shows little change in the incidence and death rates of cervical cancer in young and middle-aged women since the introduction of HPV vaccines in the U.S.
The greatest decreases in cervical cancer incidence rates were observed in older women, who likely never received an HPV vaccine, according to CHD’s testimony.
Data also suggest that regular screening, such as a pap smear, is a more effective and affordable method for reducing cervical cancer rates. Yet data show girls who receive the HPV vaccine are less likely to undergo regular screening.
CHD’s testimony included a graphic illustrating that only 0.18% of HPV infections worldwide, including in countries with less screening and more significant exposures to co-factors that contribute to cervical cancer, ever progress to cervical cancer.
CHD emphasized that the need for HPV vaccines, particularly in higher-resource countries like the U.S., is questionable given the effectiveness of screening methods and the fact that the vast majority of HPV infections clear on their own.
HPV vax harmful, trials lacked proper placebo
Holland and Rosenberg delved deeper into the potential risks associated with HPV vaccines — particularly Merck’s Gardasil and Gardasil 9 — arguing that the clinical trials for these vaccines were inadequate and failed to properly assess the vaccines’ safety.
The clinical trials for Gardasil 9, currently the only HPV vaccine available in the U.S., were “bootstrapped to the original formulation of Gardasil, approved in 2006,” according to the testimony.
This methodology, CHD claimed, resulted in a lack of “true controlled clinical trial safety data because the safety of the original Gardasil was never compared to an inert saline placebo.”
Instead, Merck compared the vaccine to its “bioactive aluminum (a known neurotoxin) adjuvant — an ingredient specifically intended to heighten an immune system response to the vaccine.”
This lack of proper safety testing, combined with the absence of saline placebos and other clinical trial manipulations, should raise concerns about allowing children to make decisions about receiving the HPV vaccine — particularly the potential impact on their future fertility — without parental involvement, CHD said.
Holland and Rosenberg cited their book “The HPV Vaccine On Trial,” which they said “details the many concerning questions raised by the Gardasil clinical trials and the injuries reported therein and in the marketplace.”
A search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System revealed “75,727 … reports of injury, including thousands of serious and disabling injuries, and 629 deaths” related to HPV vaccines as of Jan. 26, 2024, according to CHD’s testimony. “The majority of reported adverse events occurred in children under age 17,” Holland and Rosenberg wrote.
CHD pointed to the more than 100 cases now pending against Merck “for serious, life-altering injuries, many of which are autoimmune in nature, to young women and men following receipt of Merck’s HPV vaccines.”
Rosenberg is one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in multi-district litigation against Merck.
Bill violates federal law
Holland and Rosenberg argued the Vermont bill violates federal law and is unconstitutional. They cited the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which requires parents to receive Vaccine Information Statements before their child is vaccinated.
“Therefore, the bill is clearly unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” the testimony stated. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land and that in most cases it preempts state law when there is a conflict.
CHD also pointed to a 2022 federal court decision in Booth v. Bowser resulting in a preliminary injunction against a similar law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds it conflicted with the federal law.
CHD warned that Vermont could face a similar outcome if S.151 is passed, noting U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden’s conclusion in the case:
“States and the District are free to encourage individuals — including children — to get vaccines. But they cannot transgress on the Program Congress created. And they cannot trample the Constitution.”
CHD also cited the Mature Minor Doctrine Clarification Act, a Tennessee law signed by the state’s governor in May 2023. The law recognizes the applicability of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s requirement for healthcare providers to provide a Vaccine Information Statement to a minor’s parent or guardian before vaccination.
Other testimony submitted in opposition to the bill can be found here.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Featured Video
No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
What is the Israeli Lobby in Australia Doing in Interfaith Dialogue?
By Ali Kazak | Dissident Voice | October 11, 2015
For years Israel and its lobby around the world have been trying to normalise their relations with Arabs and Muslims without solving the Palestine Question.
One of the methods they resorted to in the last few years is using human rights and community organizations such as interfaith dialogue and Multiculturalism to achieve this objective and to: isolate the Palestinians, marginalise the Palestine question, end Israel’s isolation, and prevent criticism of Israel, knowing that these organisations will be the first to stand against Israel’s violations, racial and religious discrimination.
The group responsible for this task in Australia is The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC); its Director of International & Community Affairs, Jeremy Jones is in charge of lobbying religious community organizations, specifically Muslims and Christians. Consequently he convened the Faith Communities for Reconciliation, founding participant in the Australian Partnership of Religious Organisations and the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims & Jews.
AIJAC is a private political propaganda group. It is recognised as the main Israeli lobby in Australia. It coordinates its activities and works intimately with the Israeli embassy in Canberra and different institutions in Israel. It is privately funded by some Jewish businessmen. It monitors closely Australian politicians, the media, ethnic and religious groups, (especially Arabs and Muslims), unions and academics on their stands towards Israel and the Palestine question. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Economic terrorism’: Steel facilities hit again in US-Israeli strike
- ‘War Crime’: Iran condemns attacks on Arak, Ardakan nuclear sites
- Two-thirds of Americans want quick end to Iran war even if goals unmet
- Trump to Give “Important Update on Iran” Wednesday in Prime-Time Speech
- Theodore Postol: Iran’s Missiles & Drones Were Underestimated
- Iran To Target Military Industrial-Tech Complex That Facilitated Gaza Genocide
- Collapsing Empire: The Resistance Disarms ‘Israel’
- Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service
- Rethinking America’s greatest threat: Iran vs. Israel-Firsters
- Iran accuses adversaries of false flags to strain Turkey ties
- If Americans Knew
- Ann Coulter Rips Into Fox News for Iran War Coverage
- Joe Kent Urges Americans To Call White House and Congress To Object To Sending Troops Into Iran
- DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat
- Swedish foundation to build 400 schools as over 650,000 Gaza children remain without education for 2 years
- Israeli army admits photshopping image of slain Lebanese journalist
- This is how Israel is systematically killing health workers under the cover of war in Lebanon
- Carrying life under fire: Israeli invasion of Lebanon leaves pregnant women facing deadly risks
- Champagne all around for the new death penalty (for Palestinians) law – Not a ceasefire Day 172
- Why are Palestinian books struggling to be seen on Amazon?
- The Line Between Affinity and Conspiracy
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 