Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Government Says Vaccine Passports Won’t Be Mandatory – They’re Lying

By Richie Allen | June 30, 2021

The Daily Mail is reporting this morning that the government has shelved plans to use vaccine passports after July 19th, the so-called Freedom Day.

The Mail claims that it has been told that covid certification will not be required at mass gatherings when restrictions are lifted.

Government sources have revealed that those attending festivals, concerts or sporting events will not be required to show proof of vaccination or proof of immunity. That sounds good right?

Wrong. The Mail also reports that:

Organisers will, however, be permitted to run their own schemes, with the Premier League among those expected to introduce some form of certification to prove those attending football grounds do not pose a Covid risk.

There’s the kicker. Organisers will be permitted to run their own schemes. The government is simply passing the buck to the private sector. Here’s what I think will happen in the coming months. It’s all so predictable.

Shortly, the government will confirm that it will not be imposing mandatory covid certification. There will be lots of virtue signalling. Ministers will wax lyrical about civil liberties. “The UK is not that sort of country,” they will claim.

The government will say that it has listened to the hospitality industry and understands the concerns of pub and restaurant owners who do not want to be chasing customers for proof of vaccination.

From late July, through August and September, life will feel more normal. It’ll be a false dawn. We’ll hit October. Covid case numbers will rise steadily. Many of those who took the mRNA jabs will become seriously ill and die. This will be blamed on the mythical variants.

Testing will be ramped up. The redundant and thoroughly discredited PCR test will find Covid in nearly everyone who is screened. The government will say that there is a danger that the NHS will be overwhelmed. They’ll say that flu is back too. Of course it’ll be a very virulent strain of flu. The government will tell us that regretfully, restrictions must be reimposed.

There will be real panic in the hospitality and entertainment industries. Fearing for their businesses, owners will scream bloody murder. At the 11th hour a compromise will be reached. That compromise will be the introduction of vaccine passports.

Landlords and restaurateurs who were previously critical of the scheme, will rush to embrace it. People who had a covid booster jab and a flu jab (meaning they will have had four jabs in 2021), will demand the introduction of the passport to allow them to socialise.

Enormous pressure will be brought to bear on people like me who haven’t had a jab and never will. This was never about a virus. It was always about conditioning us to take gene altering vaccines and lots of them. It’s unimaginably evil, but it is happening.

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Big Tech created a gold mine of data for law enforcement

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 30, 2021

It’s not exactly news at this point: law enforcement agencies are increasingly seeking Big Tech’s cooperation in giving them access to massive data sets taken from users of social networks and other online platforms and services.

And although some reports now address this topic in the context of the way these powers were used during the Trump era Department of Justice (DoJ), the practice neither started, nor ended with the previous US administration.

Instead, over the past six years, there has been a steady and entirely predictable rise in requests for detailed personal data that Big Tech collects from users and their devices. The more data – the more requests.

The latest available statistics from the first half of last year show that Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft received three times more requests for information about users’ calls and emails, and content like photos and texts, compared to 2015. But tech giants collect – and hand over – much more than that, shopping and driving route history being some of the data harvested thanks to map and payment apps.

In the first half of 2020 alone US law enforcement asked for this data a total of 112,000 times – and Big Tech complied either fully or partially in 85% of cases. Facebook and Instagram in particular, having the largest combined user base, also topped this list.

And while the behemoths say that most of that data is “non-content” – such as metadata – user’s privacy is not much better off for it, considering that identifiable information can clearly be extracted from multiple correlated metadata points.

In a recent report, AP cites the case of Newport, a small town with a large tourist industry, whose police department is now increasingly relying on obtaining data from tech companies when investigating crimes.

“The amount of information you can get from people’s conversations online – it’s insane,” Newport supervising detective Robert Salter shared with the agency.

Digital privacy groups like the EFF call this “the golden age of government surveillance” as law enforcement not only has more access to data, but is also more prone to using gag orders, leaving its targets unawares.

The EFF suggests tech companies use strong encryption as one remedy to the police “short-circuiting constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.”

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s government is seeking to silence Canadian journalists at home and abroad with a draconian censorship bill

By Eva Bartlett | RT | June 30, 2021

As a Canadian journalist, I could be subject to a censorship bill which, if passed in Senate, means the government in Canada can effectively shadow-ban and censor my voice into oblivion, along with other dissenting voices.

After seeing his tweet on the issue of Bill C-10, recently passed in the House of Commons, I spoke with Canadian journalist Dan Dicks about this. He explained that the bill is being presented as being about Canada bringing Big Tech companies under the regulation of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), to have them display more Canadian content.

“But what people are missing,” he cautioned, “is that there were clauses put into this bill, protections for certain publishers and content creators that would protect people like myself and yourself.”

Those clauses, he said, were recently removed from the bill, leading many content-creating Canadians aware of the bill to worry they will be treated the same as a broadcaster or a programmer, subject to the regulations of the CRTC.

The bottom line is that, beyond the mumbo jumbo of the government, this is the latest attack on freedom of expression, and on dissent.

“It really appears that it’s a backdoor to be able to control the free flow of information online, and to begin to silence voices that go against the status quo,” Dicks said, warning that fines for violators could follow.

“It’s not looking good for individual content creators. Anybody who has any kind of a voice or a significant audience, where they have the ability to affect the minds of the masses, to reach millions of people, they are going to be the ones who are on the chopping block moving forward.”

Names like James Corbett come to mind. Although based in Japan, as a Canadian he would be subject to the bill. And with his very harsh criticisms of many issues pertaining to the Canadian government, he is a thorn they would surely be happy to remove under the pretext of this bill.

Or Dicks, who likewise creates videos often critiquing Canadian government actions.

Or researcher Cory Morningstar, authors Maximilian Forte, Mark Taliano, Yves Engler, or outspoken physicist Denis Rancourt, to name a handful of dissenting voices. Agree or not with their opinions, they have the right to voice them.

Or myself. I’ve been very critical of Canada’s Covid policies and hypocrisy, as well as Canada’s whitewashing of terrorism in Syria, support to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and unwavering support for Israel which is systematically murdering, starving, and imprisoning Palestinian civilians–including children.

An article on the Law & Liberty website, which describes itself as focussing on “the classical liberal tradition of law and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons,” notes the bill enables “ample discretion to filter out content made by Canadians that doesn’t carry a desirable ideological posture and [to] prioritize content that does.”

The article emphasizes that the bill violates Canadians’ right to free expression, as well as “the right to express oneself through artistic and political creations, and the right to not be unfairly suppressed by a nebulous government algorithm.”

It noted that Canadians with large followings, like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Steven Crowder, “each enjoy audiences which far exceed any cable television program.”

As with my examples above, these prominent Canadian voices likewise risk shadow-banning under this bill.

But, worse, there is another bill, C-36, that also portends heavy censorship: the “Reducing Online Harms” bill. This one not only involves censorship, but hefty fines and house arrests for violators

The same  Law & Liberty article notes, “Canada is also expected to follow the template of Germany’s NetzDG law, which mandates that platforms take down posts that are determined to constitute hate speech—which requires no actual demonstrated discrimination or potential harm, and is thus mostly subjective—within 24 hours or to face hefty fines. This obviously will incentivize platforms to remove content liberally and avoid paying up.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), rightly, contests this bill, noting, “the proposed definition of hate speech as speech that is ‘likely’ to foment detestation or vilification is vague and subjective.”

Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, is likewise extremely critical of the bills.

The CCF points out the potential complete loss of Canadians’ fundamental rights with these bills.

It should be common sense that these bills are extremely dangerous to Canadians, however cloaked in talk of levelling playing fields and of combating hate speech they may be.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Singaporean Ministers Announce That Country Must Learn to Live With COVID-19

By Noah Carl • Lockdown Sceptics • June 29, 2021

Singapore has recorded fewer deaths from COVID-19 than almost any other country with reliable data: only 36 to date, which equates to a rate of just six per million. (The U.K.’s official COVID-19 death rate is 1,890 per million.)

And according to the World Mortality Dataset, Singapore has had zero excess mortality since the pandemic began. On the other hand, the country did take a sizeable economic hit last year – with GDP falling by 5.4% (compared to only 2.8% in Sweden).

What’s more, Singapore has not recorded more than 100 cases in a day since August of last year. If any advanced country has come close to “Zero Covid”, it’s Singapore.

Despite that record, three Singaporean ministers have announced that “COVID-19 may never go away” and “it is possible to live normally with it in our midst”.

Writing in The Straits Times, Gan Kim Yong, Lawrence Wong and Ong Ye Kung (the ministers for trade, finance and health) say that “COVID-19 will very likely become endemic”. This means that “the virus will continue to mutate, and thereby survive in our community”.

In other words, the Singaporean Government is under no illusion that it will be possible to eliminate COVID-19, contrary to the claims of the “Zero COVID” movement. Indeed, a survey by Nature of 119 experts found that 89% believe it is “likely” or “very likely” that SARS-CoV-2 will become an endemic virus.

“We can’t eradicate it”, the ministers write, “but we can turn the pandemic into something much less threatening, like influenza.” How do they propose to deal with the virus going forward?

First, they intend to proceed with their vaccination program, which aims to have two thirds of people vaccinated by August 9th. Second, they intend to continue testing, but “the focus will be different”. For example, the country will cease “monitoring COVID-19 infection numbers every day”. Third, they intend to keep using and developing effective treatments for COVID-19.

As Yong, Wong and Kung conclude, “History has shown that every pandemic will run its course.” Though one might object that even the few remaining measures are no longer necessary, the ministers seem to understand what they’re talking about. Their article is worth reading in full.

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Covid’s dark winter: How bio war-gaming robbed us of our liberty

By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | June 30, 2021

MANY have asked themselves how policies so ineffective and yet damaging to so many people’s lives and liberties could have been put in place so quickly, and seemingly almost on a global basis, in response to the Covid crisis.

Part of the answer has been provided by an investigation by German journalist and author Paul Schreyer. In an hour-long video, he tracks a series of pandemic simulation exercises conducted at the highest level over many years among the most influential industrial nations of the West.

Top officials were ‘primed’ to respond as they did, once the World Health Organisation declared the pandemic spread of a new coronavirus, SARS-COV-2, almost regardless of the nature of the virus or the degree of harm it was likely to cause.

This weakness can be seen as a huge obstacle to rational decision-making. It helps to explain how the views of thousands of doctors, scientists and others who have challenged the official, fear-based approach to the pandemic came to be ignored.

Schreyer maintains that political decisions during the crisis did not come out of the blue, but stemmed from a ‘war on viruses’ begun back in the 1990s, alongside the ‘war on terror’.

It was as though a fresh enemy had to be brought into being, following the end of the Cold War era in which the superpowers Russia and America confronted each other with immense and potentially suicidal armaments and military budgets.

‘I am running out of villains.  I am running out of demons,’ said General Colin Powell in a 1991 newspaper interview. ‘I’m down to Castro and Kim Il-Sung.’ At the time he was the highest-ranking military official in the USA.

That was the context in which the fight against terror, including preparations to fight biological weaponry, began. A 1993 bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in New York City, attributed to Islamist terrorists, boosted demands for continued use of American military abroad, and a similar attack, though with mysterious origins, on a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 reinforced fears of a ‘shadow enemy’ within.

At the same time, dangerous biological research was being conducted at US facilities, said to be aimed at better understanding the threat that could be posed by a state or terrorist with a biological arsenal.

Colonel Dr Robert Kadlec, Biodefence Programmes Director at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote in a 1998 Pentagon strategy paper: ‘Using biological weapons under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial.  Biological warfare’s potential to create significant economic loss and subsequent political instability, coupled with plausible denial, exceeds the possibilities of any other human weapon.’

That same year saw the founding of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Civilian Biodefence Strategies, later renamed the Centre for Health Security. This institution has played a major role in the Covid pandemic, compiling, displaying and analysing data on a global dashboard used by media – for the most part, unquestioningly – all over the world.

And it was this centre that organised several important simulation exercises in the field of disaster response strategies.

The first, the National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to Bioterrorism, was held at Arlington, home to the Pentagon, in February 1999. Hundreds of delegates from ten countries took part.  Smallpox was the supposed bioweapon, and delegates were taken through a series of sessions simulating how an attack might be handled and problems that might arise.

How far could the police go to detain patients? How to proceed with vaccination?  Should martial law be implemented? How to control the message going to the public? Public health issues were for the first time being treated as military problems, with the Department of Health becoming part of the US national security apparatus.

A similar exercise took place in November 2000 in Washington DC, this time using plague as the simulated pandemic. Scenarios enacted in front of the high-level officials attending included: ‘The sight of an armed military presence in US cities has provoked protests about the curtailment of civil liberties … the question is, how do we enforce it, and to what degree? How much force do we use to keep people in their homes?’

A third exercise, called Dark Winter, held at a military base a few miles outside Washington in June 2001, simulated a full-scale smallpox emergency. It brought in journalists from well-known media, including the BBC, to question the politicians and top-level officials so that they could learn the kind of issues that would arise.

Among the conclusions:

  • We are ill-equipped to prevent the dire consequences of a bioweapon attack.
  • America lacks the resource stockpiles required for appropriate responses, including vaccines, antibiotics, and means of effective distribution.
  • Forcible constraints on citizens may likely be the only tools available when vaccine stocks are depleted.
  • Americans can no longer take basic civil liberties such as freedom of assembly or travel for granted.

On a fictional news channel created as part of the exercise, Kadlec announced: ‘The problem is, we do not have enough vaccine … it means this could be a very dark winter in America.’

When the real Covid-19 struck, Kadlec became the top emergency preparedness official co-ordinating the response from both the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the federal government.

Days after Joe Biden was declared winner of the presidential election, he warned of a ‘dark winter’ ahead, urging continued mask-wearing. ‘You might call it a coincidence, although you could also suspect that his choice of words was related to the exercise,’ Schreyer says.

The September 11, 2001 attacks brought home the terrorist threat to everybody in the global community. Proposed legal changes to extend state powers of surveillance met resistance in the US, but that disappeared following the so-called anthrax attacks in October the same year. Letters containing anthrax spores were sent to several news media offices, and to two senators who had opposed the changes.

‘To this day it is not clear who was responsible for those attacks,’ says Schreyer, who interprets them as ‘a signal that a certain red line should not be crossed’.

A month later, in November 2001, on the initiative of the US Government, a new international organisation was founded called Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI).

It was emphasised that every government was in danger of receiving a deadly pathogen, and there was a need to unite and jointly take action. The participating countries were Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Britain, and the USA. The European Union also signed up to the initiative and the WHO was involved as technical adviser.  Health ministers and senior officials came together regularly to discuss bioterrorism and how best to co-ordinate a response.

In 2002 a further crucial step was taken: The group declared that the threat need not only be man-made, but might also come from nature, such as with a flu pandemic.  Emergency preparation was needed for both scenarios, on a global scale.

From then on, exercises were co-ordinated internationally. The first, called Global Mercury, convened in 2003, depicted an attack by fictitious self-inoculated terrorists to spread smallpox internationally to target countries.   A planning group for the exercise was led by Canada and comprised ‘trusted agents’ from all participating nations or organisations. Hundreds of people participated.

Another important exercise, convened in 2005, was called Atlantic Storm. Many of the country representatives were either current or former individuals with governmental responsibility.  The real-life Madeleine Albright, for example, former US Secretary of State, played the US President.

Key questions highlighted in the post-exercise report included:

  • How should national leaders determine measures such as border closures or quarantine?
  • If actions are taken that restrict the movement of people, for how long should they be maintained? How would they be coordinated internationally, and how would the decision be made to lift them?

The basic premise of all the scenarios, Schreyer says, was to highlight decision-making processes and competencies in a public health emergency. ‘But they also involved declaring a state of emergency, implementing authoritarian leadership, bypassing parliament and investing certain federal officials with augmented decision-making power while also suspending fundamental civil rights and effecting plans to vaccinate the population.

‘What strikes me as particularly noteworthy is the ready suspension of basic human rights when responding to a pandemic or bioterror attack; because that is not necessarily a logical consequence.

‘Observing all this, the question arises: Maybe such exercises might have served as a cover and testing ground for a state of emergency and checking out how such a political situation could be handled.’

One lesson we might draw from the handling of the Covid crisis is that while politicians understandably feel a need to prepare for global disasters, they risk causing far more harm than good by following tramlines of action rigidly predetermined to be ‘the science’ of the situation, but which actually obstruct rational responses.

June 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

World Economic Forum makes censorship pledge to “tackle harmful content and conduct online”

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | June 29, 2021

The World Economic Forum, an international group that works to “shape global, regional and industry agendas,” has formed a new “Global Coalition for Digital Safety” that’s made up of Big Tech executives and government officials and intends to come up with new “innovations” to police “harmful content and conduct online.”

The scope of so-called “harmful” content that will be targeted by this Global Coalition for Digital Safety is far-reaching and encompasses both legal content (such as “health misinformation” and “anti-vaccine content”) and illegal content (such as child exploitation and abuse and violent extremism).

Big Tech companies already censor millions of posts under their far-reaching rules that prohibit harmful content and misinformation. They also publish detailed quarterly reports about this censorship.

But according to the World Economic Forum, Big Tech’s current metrics, recommendation systems, and complaints systems are “deficient” which is why “more deliberate coordination between the public and private sector is needed.”

The World Economic Forum intends to deliver this “more deliberate coordination” through its Global Coalition for Digital Safety which will work to tackle what it deems to be harmful content through a series of measures.

These measures include exchanging “best practices for new online safety regulations,” taking “coordinated action to reduce the risk of online harm,” and creating global definitions of harmful content “to enable standardized enforcement, reporting, and measurement across regions.”

The members of this Global Coalition for Digital Safety include officials from the governments or government regulators in Australia, the UK, Indonesia, Ukraine, Bangladesh, and Singapore, an executive from the tech giant Microsoft, and the founder of the artificial intelligence (AI) powered content moderation and profanity filter platform Two Hat Security.

“Global online safety is a collective goal that must be addressed by working across borders as well as by individual nations,” Ofcom Chief Executive Dame Melanie Daws said. “We look forward to collaborating with international Coalition members to reduce the risk of online harms and build a safer life online for everyone.”

Microsoft’s Chief Digital Safety Officer, Courtney Gregoire, added: “The World Economic Forum is uniquely positioned to accelerate the public-private collaboration needed to advance digital safety globally, Microsoft is eager to participate and help build whole-of-society solutions to this whole-of-society problem.”

The formation of this global coalition is reflective of tech companies’ increased willingness to collaborate with global governments to censor legal content that they deem to be harmful and to push these governments to introduce more expansive speech regulations.

Just a few months before this coalition was announced, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki called for global coalitions to address content that’s “legal but could be harmful” at the World Economic Forum Global Technology Governance Summit 2021.

And last year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pushed for “more guidance and regulation” from world leaders on what people are allowed to say online.

Similar global coalitions that have attempted to create global censorship standards, such as the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), have resulted in the automated censorship of satire, media reports, and other types of legal content.

June 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson’s allegation that the Biden administration is spying on him should worry everyone in the media

By Micah Curtis | RT | June 29, 2021

The Fox News host alleges the National Security Agency is spying on him and his show. If true, this violation of American freedoms should concern us all. So, how “wrong” does an opinion have to be to attract the NSA’s attention?

I would like to preface this article by saying that what Tucker Carlson claims still needs verification, but if it’s true, it sets a horrifying precedent. On his show last night, the political commentator claimed the Biden administration was spying on him, and a whistleblower had come forward with evidence proving it was going on.

During the broadcast, he alleged the whistleblower had presented him and his team with a communication about a story they were going to run that only someone within that team would have known about, and that they could only have known about via his own SMSs or emails. According to Carlson, there was no other possible source for that information.

He went on to state the following: “The Biden administration is spying on us. We have confirmed that. This morning we filed a FOIA request – a Freedom of Information Act request – asking for all the information the NSA and other agencies have gathered about this show. We did it mostly as a formality. We’ve also contacted the press office of both the NSA and the FBI. We don’t expect to hear much back. That’s the way that usually goes. Only Congress can force transparency on the intelligence agencies, and they should do that immediately. Spying on opposition journalists is incompatible with democracy. If they are doing it to us – and, again, they are definitely doing it to us, they are almost certainly doing it to others. This is scary, and we need to stop it right away.”

If what Carlson says is correct, this should make every single person who works in the United States media scared out of their minds. The idea of either political party, when in power, spying on the goings-on of news programs and media outlets is anathema to press freedom. What could conceivably be the reason behind such intelligence-gathering? The Biden administration keeps saying it wants to go after “white supremacists,” so are they going to try to lump Tucker Carlson in with that group? Will they try to do this to other conservative media personalities? Lord knows, the critical race theory they seem so fond of would certainly allow them to consider such people to be hateful bigots stained with the original sin of whiteness.

This is the problem with the United States government having the ability to spy on its own people. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) once made the point that the measures in place since the Bush era have not caught a single domestic terrorist. It makes you wonder if they’re now going to be used simply to hammer down on law-abiding citizens who just don’t have the ‘right’ opinion. When you’ve found a way to make conservative commentators such as Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro seem as extreme as neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, everyone can become a target.

It doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Whether you’re on the right or the left, it should absolutely horrify you that a sitting administration is spying on the press. In fact, I think members of the press need to answer a question for themselves now: would you rather have a president who has a negative view of your work and dismisses you as a jerk, or someone who spies on you for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinions? The former is an annoyance. The latter is an Orwellian nightmare.

June 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Canada wants to fine people up to $50,000 for “online hate speech”

Canada’s proposals would make it one of the most oppressive nations when it comes to free expression

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim the Net | June 29, 2021

The “Liberal” Canadian government plans to pass a law that criminalizes so-called online “hate speech,” with the punishment being fines ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. The law only punishes social media users, it does not punish the platforms hosting the alleged hate speech and will introduce a new definition of “hate” that is yet to be revealed.

The law criminalizes online hate speech, with first time offenders getting a fine of C$20,000 (about US$16,200) and second time offenders getting a fine of C$50,000 (about US$40,500).

According to Canada’s Attorney General David Lametti, the proposed law targets extreme forms of hatred, which “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination,” not “simple expressions of dislike or disdain.”

“Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights,” Lametti added. “It threatens the safety and well-being of its targets. It silences and intimidates, especially when the target is a vulnerable person or community. When hate speech spreads, its victims lose their freedom to participate in civil society online.”

While announcing the proposed law the government released a statement explaining its intended goals. Per the statement, the proposed law, dubbed Bill C-36, will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online and add a definition of “hatred” to section 319 of the Criminal Code based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

The government also announced that it would publish a “detailed technical discussion paper” in the near future to explain the proposed law in detail.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said: “Online platforms are central to participation in public life and have enormous power over online speech and Canadians’ everyday lives. While they allow us as Canadians to stay in touch with loved ones, learn and debate, they can also be used to discriminate, harm and silence.”

“In consultation with Canadians, the Government of Canada is committed to taking action to put in place a robust, fair and consistent legislative and regulatory framework on the most egregious and reprehensible types of harmful content,” Guilbeault continued. “This is why we will engage Canadians in the coming weeks to ask for feedback on specific, concrete proposals that will form the basis of legislation.”

June 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

NOVA SCOTIA FEARS PEOPLE GATHERING AND SPREADING THE TRUTH

Lockdowns are being used for prevention of free discourse

Fact Seekers | June 28, 2021

They finally admit it.

June 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Consent? What’s that? The Massachusetts Department of Public Health is spying on you.

Source: MassPrivateI
By Richard Hugus | June 27, 2021

Without any kind of public notice, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has gotten together with “Don’t Be Evil” Google to install spyware on smartphones of visitors to and residents of Massachusetts without the knowledge or consent of those visitors or residents. This is being done under cover of the all-purpose totalitarianism called covid 19. The spyware is a contact tracing application called  “Exposure Notifications Settings Feature – MA/ MADepartment of Public Health” available for download (if you’re stupid enough to do it voluntarily) at Google Play.

Let’s recall for a moment that contact tracing is the ability of some hidden authority to find out where you are now, where you’ve been, how long you were there, who you were with, who those people were with, and so on. No doubt it will soon be able to record what you said, if it isn’t already. And this is all because we and our neighbors are willing to carry tracking devices with microphones and cameras into places and conversations we thought were private.

A web site called privacytogo.co has an article about the stealth Mass DPH app, describing how it is installed secretly on your phone without your asking for it, or asking for your permission, and how, once installed, you can’t turn it off or otherwise get rid of it (and if you think you’re turning it off, you’re really not). One commenter named Callie M remarked:

“SPYWARE?! Automatically installed without consent. It has no icon, no way to open this and see what it even does, which is a huge red flag. Per the notifications it runs on Bluetooth which is a major battery drain, and seems to want to track my location. Major privacy violation if you ask me, and suspicious that this would be “necessary” when the surge in MA is over and the state of emergency no longer in effect because most are vaccinated. I think it’s spyware, phishing as the DPH. UNINSTALL”

The Google Play site above is useful for seeing hundreds of negative comments like this, but, like Calle M, some make the mistake of assuming that contact tracing is no longer necessary because so many people have been “vaccinated.” If the mRNA injections were actually a response to a public health crisis, contact tracing would still be a serious violation of our right to privacy. But the injections have nothing to do with our health. They are obviously harmful to our health. Their purpose —  for those of us they do not kill — is to get everyone into a surveillance and control database which will increase the scope of contact tracing many times over. With this database, the authorities will have the power to say who is and is not allowed to engage in normal social life, from shopping to banking to going to entertainment venues or bars. The mRNA injections are simply the foundation for our transhuman future as laid out by Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab and others who think they know what is best for humanity. But, like the “exposure notification” app, we were never consulted about whether we want to merge with machines. After 16 months of cynical social engineering, of fear-stoking and lies, of violations against our personal sovereignty and Constitutional rights, we can be sure that any idea of our consent is held in complete contempt by Google and the bureaucrats in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

According to the author of the privacy to go article:

“Not only are Google and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health covering their tracks when installing this unsolicited spyware, they’re tracking whether or not you are the type of person who would disobey contact tracing edicts in the first place! . . . Google is not simply ignoring user consent in their ongoing mass surveillance dragnet. They are actively enabling governments in creating a “biosecurity surveillance” apparatus – whether you want to participate or not.”

Massachusetts Governor and new world order ass-kisser Charlie Baker announced an end to most of his illegal emergency orders effective June 15, but the app was rolled out that same day. Calling the need for “vaccination” of all Massachusetts residents an emergency on May 28, and then sneaking in a spy initiative two weeks later, we see that the Governor wasn’t really ending anything. There has never been any public consultation, consent, or due process in any of the Governor’s orders.

The privacytogo article ends with the only logical advice to people interested in escaping government by technocracy:

“The simplest solution to disable contact tracing is arguably the hardest for most people:

Get rid of your smartphone.”

Why would we willingly carry around a device that is designed to spy on and enslave us?

June 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Biden administration to “encourage” private companies to use vaccine passports

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 28, 2021

Civil liberties could be crushed by the private sector as US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has revealed that the Biden administration is openly nudging private companies towards introducing so-called Covid passports for their employees – seemingly as the closest thing, policy-wise, to having to outright mandate them.

Judging by Buttigieg’s department’s statement for Fox News, the administration would also like to keep itself outside of a move as controversial as making vaccination passports compulsory and government-mandated.

But when he spoke for FOX 4 on Monday, Buttigieg was clear: the federal level position is to “do everything” to encourage privately-owned businesses to enforce Covid passports among their workers.

This is consistent with Buttigieg’s statements earlier in the year, when he spoke along the same lines. At the same time, the federal government would not (likely to avoid getting itself directly mired in a world of political, legal, and constitutional trouble) mandate this kind of verification, that proves people have received the Covid jab. Instead, the policy is clearly that of encouraging and relying on the private sector to do “the dirt work.”

In April, Buttigieg said it was “not the role of the government” to make and impose that decision – but also noted that the tech to do that was “there.” And if the private sector developing it needed any kind of advice or support, the Biden administration was there for them, he said at the time.

This applies not only to employees but also to private companies’ customers – like airline passengers. According to Buttigieg’s statements, the federal government would allow these firms to do whatever they saw fit to “protect passengers and workers” – but also clearly to prop up industries that have suffered greatly from over a year and a half of the (mis)handling of the Covid pandemic.

That’s not to say all US states are playing along. Florida is outright banning both private and public entities from mandating proof of Covid vaccination status.

Also in April, Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke for Politico to say he thought it unlikely that the vaccine passports would be mandated by the government, but at the same time revealed how the mechanisms of enforcing the scheme might eventually achieve much the same result.

“I’m not saying that they should or that they would, but I’m saying you could foresee how an independent entity might say, ‘Well, we can’t be dealing with you unless we know you’re vaccinated,’ but it’s not going to be mandated from the federal government,” Fauci told Politico at the time.

June 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Hypocritical Gospel according to the Covidians

By Elephant City | The Conservative Woman | June 28, 2021

THE recent spectacle of the G7 leaders in Cornwall posing for photos in masks and then ripping them off to party down with no social distancing is only the latest and most blatant example of double standards from the Covidians. For anyone paying attention, they have been giving us a daily masterclass in advanced hypocrisy.

The Covidian faith is strongest among Left-leaning elite managerial types. Safetyism is a huge part of their religion. These are people who slather sunblock on their kids before they step out the door and monitor them with tracking apps on their phones. And then they allow their kids to be shot up with an experimental ‘vaccine’ (gene therapy) that was tested on only 1,131 children who were followed up for less than six months.

The Covidians tremble in their homes like gutless cowards because of a disease that has an average survival rate of at 99.8 per cent for the general population and nearly 100 per cent for the healthy population. And then they allow themselves to be injected with an experimental gene therapy with less than a year of safety data, authorised by regulatory agencies fully corrupted by Big Pharma money. So much for ‘stay safe’!

Covidianism is a branch of wokism. The woke take every opportunity to manufacture status by loudly proclaiming their concern for ‘social justice’. They seized on the pandemic as a chance to flaunt their shining virtue to the world by hanging out of windows and lustily banging pots and clapping. They conveniently ignored the fact that the lockdown policies they so eagerly supported crushed the working class. They considered it completely natural that a class of workers should have to deliver their food, work in the grocery stores, take their garbage and clean their streets, while they hid behind their computer screens and called for ever harsher lockdowns. Their idea of social justice consists of forcing others to face the risks of Covid while they attend Zoom meetings in their sweatpants.

As card-carrying members of the woke, the Covidians surely spent the last four or five years eagerly mouthing the central tenet of the faith: that the ‘patriarchy’ is the root of all evil; that a gang of Western white men has spent the last few centuries brutally oppressing everyone else in the world. And then, without any irony, they slavishly follow every command of Western white men such as Boris Johnson, Chris Whitty, Matt Hancock, Anthony Fauci and Joe Biden.

Likewise, as good wokesters, they no doubt eagerly signed up to the campaign to ‘defund STEM’ (because science itself is a tool of the dreaded patriarchy). Now, without the slightest tinge of shame, they angrily insist that we must ‘follow The Science.’ Of course, what they mean by ‘The Science’ is the institutional narrative favourable to Big Pharma.

The Covidians profess tremendous faith in the vaccine. Yet they find it almost impossible to let go of their precious masks, their flag of tribal identity. Likewise, despite their faith in the vaccine, the Covidian faithful insist that everyone else on earth be forced to take the vaccine (though presumably, if the vaccine works, they are protected so it doesn’t matter whether others take it).

As members of the elite managerial class, they obsess about the quality of their food, scrutinising food labels to be sure that anything they put into their bodies is organic, artisanal and free from chemicals. And then they queue to have a syringe full of unknown, barely tested, industrial genetic products shot directly into their bloodstream.

No doubt most Covidian women are strident feminists who mouth the slogan ‘my body, my choice’. Yet they eagerly support a national campaign of coerced ‘consent’ wherein the state forces the people to accept injection of unknown and potentially dangerous genetic material into their bodies. They are supporting the penetration of the state into their physical beings – mechanical rape on an industrial scale.

Likewise, these feminists have no doubt spent the last few decades working their way into every boardroom, professorship and political office. Now they vocally support being locked in their homes by the state. They gladly accept limits on their freedom that would make Saudi Arabian women look like liberated hippie chicks.

The Covidians claim that black lives matter, and yet they support policies that damage the working class, in which people of colour are disproportionately represented. Likewise, they support the regime that actively suppresses knowledge and use of ivermectin, a drug that would eliminate Covid. Thus they perpetuate a pandemic that disproportionately affects people of colour.

If you look closely at the words and actions of the Covidians, you will see nothing but contradiction and hypocrisy. This indicates an appalling lack of principles, because principles would demand some consistency across words and actions. Rather, for the Covidians, it’s all about obedience to the diktats of the mainstream media and government agencies. These people are reeds bending in the wind, incapable of thinking for themselves and only concerned with appearing virtuous. They have stood for nothing and fallen for everything.

These are just a few examples: please add more in the comments section. We have a duty to history to document the full depths of the mind-boggling hypocrisy of the Covidians.

June 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »