Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Among Dozens Who Signed Oath to Conceal COVID Info That Could ‘Embarrass’ Trudeau Government

yourNEWS | May 9, 2025

Newly released records show Canada’s top doctor and federal managers signed confidentiality pledges during the COVID crisis to avoid disclosures that could damage government credibility.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, and nearly 30 senior federal health officials signed a confidential oath during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, pledging not to release information that could “embarrass” the Trudeau cabinet, according to internal records obtained through Access to Information requests.

The oath, revealed by Blacklock’s Reporter, was part of a broader secrecy policy within the Public Health Agency and other government departments including Health, Industry, Foreign Affairs, and National Defence. Internal communications from 2020 show that vaccine supply manager Alan Thom voiced concern about the widespread requirement for federal managers to sign non-disclosure agreements, noting, “at a certain point the Department of Public Works determined individual non-disclosure agreements were no longer needed… as we are all covered through our responsibilities as public servants.”

The confidentiality agreement emphasized that any “unauthorized disclosure of confidential information… may result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada and may jeopardize Canada’s supplier relations and procurement processes.” Managers acknowledged their ongoing obligations under the Values And Ethics Code For The Public Sector, according to the documents.

The oaths were signed shortly after the Trudeau administration secured billions in COVID-19 vaccine contracts with companies including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, and Sanofi. Dr. Tam, a longtime proponent of mass vaccination, oversaw public messaging during the rollout.

The first mRNA vaccine to be approved in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech shot, authorized on December 9, 2020, followed closely by Moderna’s vaccine. The approvals came after the Trudeau government granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity from liability for adverse effects. Parliamentarians requesting to review those contracts were denied access.

In response to growing reports of vaccine-related injuries, Canada launched its Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) in late 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, the program was created after legal protections were granted to pharmaceutical companies. A memo from Canada’s Department of Health now warns that VISP payouts are set to exceed the program’s original $75 million budget, prompting the federal government to allocate an additional $36 million.

Despite dwindling public demand, the government continues to purchase new doses, even as its own statistics show widespread rejection of booster injections by Canadians. Compounding concerns, an inhalable mRNA vaccine—developed using fetal cell lines and funded by Ottawa—has now entered Phase 2 clinical trials.

Data from Statistics Canada also indicates that post-vaccine rollout, deaths attributed to COVID-19 and “unspecified causes” significantly increased, raising further questions about the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine campaign.

LifeSiteNews has compiled an extensive archive of research linking COVID mRNA injections to adverse events such as myocarditis, blood clots, and fertility issues. Additional findings highlight risks in children, while all currently available COVID shots have ties to abortion-derived fetal cell lines.

With growing scrutiny over vaccine safety and government transparency, the revelation that Canada’s top public health officials signed agreements to avoid reputational harm to federal leadership adds another layer of controversy to the country’s pandemic response.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , | 1 Comment

Tamara Lich found guilty in Freedom Convoy case

The Democracy Fund | May 3, 2025

OTTAWA – In a landmark ruling, Tamara Lich was acquitted of four out of six charges related to her involvement in the Freedom Convoy protest. A fifth charge, counselling to commit mischief, was stayed, leaving only a single conviction of mischief. Justice Perkins-McVey determined that the Crown failed to prove Ms. Lich obstructed police, intimidated others, or counselled obstruction or intimidation during the protest. However, the court found her guilty of mischief as both a principal offender and an aider and abettor, citing her encouragement of others to participate, her fundraising efforts, organizational role, and statements such as “we will hold the line,” which the judge deemed a “rallying cry” to the truckers. Having already spent 49 days in pre-trial detention, Ms. Lich now awaits sentencing after what has been called the longest mischief trial in Canadian history.

The ruling ignites fierce debate over the boundaries of peaceful protest and the growing criminalization of political dissent in Canada. The verdict, delivered after 45 days of trial proceedings concluding on September 13, 2024, marks a significant moment in the legal treatment of protest-related cases, potentially deterring Canadians from exercising their rights to free expression and assembly out of fear of severe legal repercussions.

Her defence, led by top criminal lawyer Lawrence Greenspon and supported by Eric Granger, argued that Ms. Lich’s participation was safeguarded by Charter rights to free expression and peaceful assembly. They contended there was no evidence of criminal intent, emphasizing that police and city actions—such as directing protesters to park in specific areas—contributed to the disruptions. Despite a robust defence, the court rejected these arguments, finding her organizational role and public statements, including calls to “hold the line,” amounted to culpable conduct under the Criminal Code.

The Democracy Fund, which crowdfunded over half a million dollars to cover Ms. Lich’s legal expenses, described the trial as a critical test of Canadians’ right to peaceful assembly. “This ruling is a bittersweet moment—while Tamara Lich’s acquittal on several charges affirms the centrality of free expression, the mischief conviction could be interpreted as punishing some participants for the actions of others,” said Mark Joseph, Director of Litigation for The Democracy Fund. “We remain committed to challenging any erosion of Canadians’ rights to protest.”

As the legal community and public brace for sentencing, the decision raises urgent questions about the balance between public safety and individual freedoms.

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Alberta Could Hold Secession Referendum – Premier

RT | May 6, 2025

Alberta could hold a public referendum on breaking away from Canada next year if a citizen-led petition gets the required number of signatures, the province’s Premiere Danielle Smith said on Monday.

The western province has long clashed with the federal government over legislation limiting fossil fuel development and promoting clean energy, which Alberta officials say unfairly targets their economy. Smith’s announcement comes days after the Liberal Party secured a fourth consecutive term in the federal election, deepening political divides between Ottawa and oil-rich Alberta.

Following the election, the Alberta Prosperity Project launched a petition calling for a referendum on the province’s independence. The petition garnered more than 80,000 signatures within 36 hours of its May 2 launch and remains open for public support.

“Should Ottawa, for whatever reason, continue to attack our province as they have done over the last decade? Ultimately that will be for Albertans to decide,” Smith said.

She added that although she does not personally support the idea of separation, she would respect the will of voters. “I will accept their judgement,” the premiere said.

Recently, Smith’s government also introduced legislation to lower the threshold for referendums initiated by citizen petition. The bill reduces the number of signatures needed from 20% to 10% of eligible voters from the last provincial election and extends the collection period from 90 to 120 days. In order to pass the threshold, a petition would need about 177,000 signatures.

Smith noted that Alberta doesn’t want “special treatment or handouts;” it just wants to be free to develop its “incredible wealth of resources” and choose how to provide healthcare and education. She expressed hope that secession would not be necessary and that her government would be able to reach an agreement with Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s new government.

Last week, Carney’s Liberal Party retained power after a campaign that focused heavily on what he called the existential threat posed by US President Donald Trump, who has floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st US state and imposed extensive tariffs on most of its neighbor’s goods.

The outcome of the election has added to long-running tensions in conservative regions. In Alberta, where the Conservatives won 34 out of 37 seats, many residents have expressed frustration with their federal leadership. Similar dissatisfaction has been reported in neighboring Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Klaus Schwab, Sophist

By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2025

The existence of Klaus Schwab became known to much of the thinking world during the Coronapocalypse, when so-called conspiracy theories began to flourish about the use of the novel COVID-19 virus as a pretext for reconfiguring the world. The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” began to be spoken of fondly by bureaucrats back in 2020, shortly after the in some ways incomprehensibly influential Schwab co-authored with Thierry Malleret a short book extolling just those concepts: Covid-19: The Great Reset.

The work, or paraphrased excerpts of it, must have been spam-emailed to every government official and mainstream media journalist on the planet, because in no time pundits and their parrots in the press were gushing about the Great Reset, essentially a Brave New World to come (had none of them read Aldous Huxley’s classic work, or did they simply not understand it?). Nearly every influential person with a microphone was emitting the expression “Everything has changed,” insisting that this was because of the emergence of the novel coronavirus, not the government policies enacted in response to it. Schwab was lurking behind the scenes from the beginning, proffering gaslighting homilies and question-begging arguments camouflaged as benevolent recommendations and facts:

“The worldwide crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic has no parallel in modern history.”

In truth, “Everything changed” only because government officials changed everything, by closing national borders, locking down entire populations, preventing groups from assembling, and shutting down schools and all but specially designated “essential” businesses. Human beings were required to wear masks nearly everywhere they went, and those who demurred were treated as miscreants and pursued by the police. The insistence by politicians, bureaucrats and other opinion makers that “Everything has changed” was curiously reminiscent of how officials rationalized a massive and ruthless assault on Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of crimes committed on September 11, 2001, by a small group of persons hailing primarily from Saudi Arabia. (Induction on two cases: when someone starts chiming, “Everything has changed!” in order to persuade you to do something or to support some initiative, you should probably turn around and walk away.)

Klaus Schwab founded and led the World Economic Forum (WEF) for more than fifty years. Many of what were revealed during the pandemic period to be the most brazen authoritarians among ostensibly democratic world leaders have connections to the organization. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron are notable examples of leaders who punished and even ostracized citizens for daring to defy their administration’s draconian COVID policies. Schwab recently resigned from his position, but whether that was because of age—he was born in 1938—or scandal matters little at this point, for his legacy has been secured throughout much of the world.

Key features of the Great Reset were to foist ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance investing) on people transnationally or, perhaps more accurately, meta-nationally. We have seen that elements of Schwab’s Weltanschauung have indeed made their way into not only federal government policies, with Green New Deals and carbon-limiting programs imposed in many parts of the planet, but also global corporate initiatives, as many companies now boast about their “environmental and social conscience,” using this as a marketing tool. Under the “Social Governance” guise of the ESG program, enthusiastic efforts to expand DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) frameworks throughout the spheres of education and business have led to the appearance of “trans flags” waving alongside national flags at government buildings in what can only be characterized as a bizarre obsession with the subset of human beings, oddly in ascendance, who are said to have been born with the wrong set of genitalia.

One of the more extreme consequences of DEI has indeed been the effusive promotion of a radical trans agenda, which is arguably both homophobic and misogynistic, promoting as it does a grotesque caricature of femininity, exemplified by the skimpily clad and seemingly ditsy Dylan Mulvaney (remember the Budweiser ads?), while essentially denying the possibility of androgyny. In the name of inclusion, biological males (persons in possession of a Y chromosome) have been allowed to compete with females (persons devoid of a Y chromosome) in sports, with female competitors predictably forced to forego awards and scholarships as a result. Female athletes whose sports involve contact with competitors have been physically endangered by the admission of males into their sphere, as is evidenced by the case of volleyball player Payton McNabb and the 2024 Olympic boxing controversy, when two competitors who had previously failed a female gender test (for Y chromosome and testosterone levels) were permitted to compete. On top of all of those clear and present dangers, females in locker rooms have been faced with the prospect of seeing a penis dangling before them as they change their clothes or shower. Rather than attempt to protect females, policymakers were somehow persuaded by radical trans activists that males who decreed themselves to be female needed to be protected instead.

The incomprehensible power of the radical trans facet of the DEI agenda also brought about the enactment of laws which criminalize the “mis-pronouning” of persons who, despite having been born male, self-identify as female, or vice versa. Or neither, which necessitates, by law in some places now, that their interlocutors restrict personal pronoun usage to ‘they/them’. The latter is needless to say a no-win arrangement, for in complying with pronoun laws, one is thus obliged to commit a crime of grammar.

On the New Green Deal front, the European Union is continually devising new policies which attest to its commitments to the New Normal as envisioned by Schwab’s WEF, perhaps the most notorious slogan of which is “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Countless memes have satirized the WEF leader for exhorting people to eat insects and stay in their “pods,” on the grounds that livestock and travel are allegedly a menace to the future of the planet. (Note: the persons who attend the ever-proliferating conferences on the environment or serve as parliament members of the EU generally fly to their meetings, sometimes in private jets.) Earnest discussion of the possibility of “15-minute cities,” where people do not need to (or are not allowed to) travel farther than fifteen minutes from their domicile has been taken up among local council members in “green-savvy” communities.

The list of rules and regulations already imposed by the European Union is seemingly endless, but to offer only two recent examples: plastic bottles sold in Europe are now required to have their caps affixed to them, and single-serving portion containers (such as are used at bed and breakfast hotels for jam, butter, honey, etc.) are in the process of being outlawed, despite having been devised as a means not only of convenience but also to prevent cross-contamination between unrelated guests. Only time will tell whether bureaucrats eventually side with public health officials or environmentalists in the latter case.

Far more important for the future of free people are the persistent censorship measures in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and beyond, modeled after anti-misinformation and surveillance policies aggressively enforced in many countries during the COVID period. To the shock of many thinking people, governments have taken it upon themselves to monitor the social media posts of citizens and to criminalize the expression of what are deemed unacceptable opinions, an obvious legacy of the COVID period, when persons who disagreed with the government were roundly denounced as agents of misinformation who needed to be de-platformed and silenced, lest they kill anyone with their dangerous ideas. Strikingly, reports of vaccine injury were not even false (misinformation), according to the censors themselves, but instead “malinformation,” which officials regarded as having the potential to prevent people who needed the “vaccine” from getting it.

Looking back at the surprising convergence among governments about the necessity of global lockdowns and, later, universal vaccination in the face of a virus which primarily endangered elderly and already infirm persons, it is clear that Schwab’s work served as a sort of template for how to communicate with constituents and conduct public affairs. Paternalism reigned (or, if you prefer, “maternalism” à la Nurse Ratched), as citizens were spoken to by political leaders in condescending tones as though they were toddlers who needed to be protected from themselves. This approach to governance can be summed up in a phrase: Children are to be seen, not heard.

Citizens were told that it was wrong to do their own research because only “the experts,” such as pandemic guru Anthony Fauci knew what they were doing. Despite having repeatedly lied in insisting that the virus had emerged naturally, having somehow leapt from a bat to a human being (when someone in Wuhan ate a bowl of soup?), Fauci himself, we now know, promoted and funded the gain-of-function research which culminated in the very existence—and potency—of the virus. Throughout this period of history, persons who dared to dissent from the dictates and narratives of the government were decried as enemies of humanity who needed to be controlled in order to protect other people from their nefarious tendencies. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of The Real Anthony Fauci (a true tale of moral horror), who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Donald Trump’s second administration, was publicly derided and discredited as an insane conspiracy theorist throughout Joe Biden’s presidency.

The conduct of governments during the period of history from 2020 to 2023 was so confounding and preposterous that a plethora of bona fide conspiracy theories continued to emerge, reaching a peak with the release of the alleged miracle vaccine, which everyone on the planet was first encouraged (through coaxing and bribery) and then, in some cases, required to line up for, on pain of punishment for failure to comply. Some of the theories were quite creative, asserting, for example, that the shots were introducing microchips into the bodies of the recipients, or would turn them into frogs. But the term antivaxxer was affixed to anyone who declined the shot, whatever their reason, with everyone in that group assimilated and depicted as intellectually inept for defying what were claimed by officials at the time to be the dictates of common sense.

Some people, whether with formal training in science or simply endowed with critical thinking skills, understandably expressed skepticism about the new m-RNA therapy shot which they were told would eradicate the virus, while being simultaneously told that natural immunity was inadequate and that persons who already recovered from the virus would still need to undergo vaccination. Because a vaccine, by definition, exploits the subject’s own immune system, anyone with even a modicum of logical acumen must have understood that the new miracle vaccine, which depended on the immune system itself, would only work as advertised if, in fact, natural immunity was possible. This flagrant contradiction was not recognized or acknowledged as such by inept (or, in some cases, mercenarily corrupt) government officials and public health pundits, but it was the most obvious sign to people yet to be indoctrinated into the COVID cult (or not on the Big Pharma dole) that something was seriously awry.

The “Natural immunity is not possible, but this vaccine is necessary and will save you!” contradiction no doubt inspired some of the ever-mutating and proliferating theories about what was really going on. In Covid-19: The Great Reset, Schwab himself refers to antivaxxers as a dangerous impediment to getting through the crisis, and the term came swiftly to be used to denounce anyone who raised even doubts grounded in logic and science about the wisdom of submitting to an experimental treatment in cases where the person’s chances of death from the virus were quite low, as was true for all healthy young persons, and had already been demonstrated in each particular case of anyone who had recovered from previous infection.

The Pentagon required all service persons to take part in the experimental trial of the mRNA therapy, whether or not they had already recovered from infection. The more than 8,000 troops who refused the shot were discharged without pay in 2021, and the military vaccine mandate was not rescinded until 2023. Since assuming office in 2025, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defense secretary, has been apologizing to those persons and attempting to make amends, acknowledging that the order to take an experimental vaccine was in fact illegal and that no one was obliged to follow illegal orders. The true motives and sincerity of the new administration on this matter will be seen in how they treat the persons who suffered vaccine injury as a result of having undergone the procedure, under the erroneous belief that Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, knew what he was doing when he ordered the entire military corps to follow his über-masked, serially vaccinated and boosted example. If the government extends its offer of compensation only to healthy troops, in an effort to woo them back into service, and ignores the persons who were disabled by the vaccine, or the individuals and families wrecked by being plunged precipitously into penury, then it will be safe to conclude that Hegseth’s apology tour is no more and no less than a measure intended to mitigate the ongoing recruitment crisis.

There seemed to be grounds for hope that the United States had managed to extricate itself from the totalitarian clutches of meta-bureaucrats such as Klaus Schwab and their “Fifty Year Plans” for humanity when Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris (who to this day has pronouns in her profile at X) in the November 2024 presidential election. The new president immediately rescinded all DEI initiatives implemented under Biden and enacted numerous executive orders in an effort to protect women, and restore a modicum of sanity to what had become a surreal situation, by boldly asserting the biological fact that no matter how many body parts a male human being chooses to cut off or modify, every remaining cell in his body will still contain a Y chromosome. Trump also acted swiftly to criminalize the scandalous medical practice of mutilating the genitalia of minors. Both Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, repeatedly pronounced that free speech would always prevail in the United States as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and they vociferously denounced the censorship going on abroad.

Vestiges of the New World Order, however, can be seen in the United States, for example, the requirement that all citizens who wish to travel or enter a federal building be in possession of a Real ID. This measure, too, which begins in May 2025, having been planned long ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, bears similarities to some of what was going on during the COVID period, when tracking apps and data collection at borders were nearly ubiquitous. More and more data about citizens continues to be collected by governments, and remnants of the health documentation requirements during the COVID period can be seen in the visas now needed to travel to countries where formerly a passport sufficed. Restriction of movement reached a peak during the COVID period, but the apparatus now exists and with a bit of tweaking could be used to stop anyone, anywhere, from relocating at the caprice of government officials, whoever they may be, and whatever their priorities.

The removal of students from campuses in the United States for daring to speak out against the government’s continuing support of the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza suggests that Trump, like Biden and Harris, supports free speech only so long as it does not threaten his own plans for the country or its satellite state, Israel. The libertarians who voted for Trump were needless to say thrilled when he followed through on his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road who had received a double life sentence plus forty years with no possibility of parole. In choosing to vote for Trump, however, libertarians had somehow forgotten or chose to ignore the fact that Julian Assange was thrown into Belmarsh prison under Trump’s watch. (I am aware that many persons vote according to a “lesser evil” calculation, but the fact remains: the worst persecution of Assange occurred under Trump.) The fact that U.S. government drones are now acknowledged to be flying above U.S. skies (they were under Biden as well, although this was denied at the time), reveals that surveillance of residents remains a priority of the ostensibly new administration.

Antiwar activists—some of whom voted for Trump—were hopeful that he was sincere when he promised on the campaign trail not to start but to end wars. Even more welcome, albeit frankly astonishing, was Trump’s assertion on February 13, 2025, not long after having re-assumed the presidency, that he would like to cut the $800 billion Pentagon budget in half and work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pacific hopes were swiftly dashed less than two months later when, immediately after hosting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (for the second time in 2025), Trump announced on April 7, 2025, a new, even bigger, $1 trillion defense budget, accompanied by his customary raving about how splendid the U.S. military will be, thanks to his management.

In a welcome change to citizens concerned about government overreach and the massive federal debt, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the direction of Elon Musk, has been purging programs and canceling contracts relating to DEI and other parts of the Schwab “New Normal” agenda, including regulations intended to promote the Green New Deal and expand government power over citizens’ lives. The era of big government, however, is obviously not behind us. Along with his sudden imposition of extreme tariffs and announcement of a shocking 25% increase in defense spending, Trump’s strange fascination with the future possible annexation of Greenland, Canada, and Gaza, does not bode well for the future of free people. The idea that the leader of one country may simply “buy” another country or a part of another country (in the case of Gaza) reflects the very megalomania intrinsic to supra-national organizations such as the WEF and characters such as Klaus Schwab who attempt to impose their will on the rest of humanity.

Setting all of those substantial concerns aside, at the very least we can take solace in the fact that Klaus Schwab is no longer calling the WEF shots and penning flagrantly sophistic pamphlets replete with non sequiturs and gaslighting guidance masquerading as benevolence. Goodbye and good riddance, Herr Professor Doktor Schwab, we will not miss you. Alas, the WEF continues on (funded by not only a congeries of self-interested global corporations, but also NGOs and, by transitivity, unwitting taxpayers), and the danger it poses thus remains. Self-deluded officials named as global thought leaders will continue to comply with the WEF, as was exemplified by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is explicitly singled out for praise in Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Bureaucrats, for their part, will continue to conduct themselves as bureaucrats do, amassing power, devising new rules and regulations, and imposing arbitrary policies by all means necessary, as we witnessed throughout the COVID era. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the recently named interim chairman of the WEF, is a former CEO of Nestlé who famously claimed that people have no right to water. Unbeknownst to many of the millions of people who purchase and imbibe bottled water everyday, much of it derives from government-treated municipal water supplies filtered and then poured into plastic bottles to look as though it was sourced from natural spring wells such as Evian, Perrier, Pellegrino, Gerolsteiner, et al. It is unclear how much power Brabeck-Letmathe will exert, or for how long, but he does happen to look empirically indistinguishable from the super villains depicted in movies, so there is some chance that if he begins spouting out gaslighting prescriptions about how all human beings ought to behave, at least some among us will shudder, turn around and walk away.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian PM Mark Carney Downplays Role in Freedom Convoy Crackdown Despite Backing Emergency Measures

Carney called protest “sedition” and Urged financial chokehold

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 1, 2025

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney recently gave a masterclass in the art of political evasion and deflection – all the more “masterful” since one of the arguments he went for was that he is not really a politician.

This unfolded before TV cameras in the area of the 2022 Freedom Convoy blockade, which the authorities led by former PM Justin Trudeau and his Liberals clamped down on using unprecedented measures.

They included invoking the Emergencies Act to target the protesters against restrictive Covid-era policies with anything from extreme vilification to freezing their bank accounts.

“Sedition,” is what Carney decided to brand the civil protest in an op-ed published in the Globe and Mail on February 7, 2022, and, true to his previous roles in Big Finance, proposed to put an end to the protest (he called it “this occupation”) by “choking off the money” that funded it.

Now – given his current “affiliation” with the Liberal party, the new prime minister was asked to send a message to those Canadians who lost trust in the previous cabinet because of its handling of the protest.

Instead of doing that, Carney first sought to “distanced himself from himself” – saying that he has only been a politician for two months, and claiming that he took on his new role because he “knew this country needed big change.”

And he then proceeded to list all the allegedly significant changes achieved during his short time in office so far, thus deflecting from the Freedom Convoy question.

Despite his best efforts to paint himself as no more than a conscientious citizen determined to help his country through difficult times – three years ago this former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England was an informal advisor to Trudeau.

And he not only accused the Freedom of Convoy protestors of committing “sedition” and those donating to the cause of “funding sedition,” but was also mentioned in the Public Order Emergency Commission documents (which investigated the invocation of the Emergencies Act).

Spoiler: Carney supported that decision, along with the freezing of citizens’ bank accounts because they protested against the government.

But Carney’s failed upward now to become prime minister, and “re-earn trust” – not to mention, introduce “big change.”

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Life Site News | April 1, 2025

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial and federal carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“I think the carbon tax has been in place for approximately six years now coming up in April and the cost keeps going up every year,” SARM president Bill Huber said.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power – and that’s going to be gone now – and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Macron and Starmer’s coalition of the killing amid Europe’s insane war footing

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender.

Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia.

Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”.

Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale.

European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada. We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe.

Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine.

Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why.

In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project.

The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate.

The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

This week, the EU began urging citizens to stockpile emergency rations in their homes. Russia was not explicitly invoked as a threat, but it was palpably obvious that fear of war was being inculcated. While European states are slashing billions in social welfare, their elitist, Russophobic leaders are ramping up billions for militarism. Europe is on a war footing based on paranoia and the pathological fears of a ruling clique.

Macron and Starmer are also pushing the idea of integrating Ukraine into a first line of defense against alleged future Russian aggression toward Europe. In reality, this is about reconfiguring offense.

Their pretensions of “building a robust peace for Ukraine and Europe” are a reckless gambit to prolong the war. At its worst, the conflict could explode into an all-out world war.

It is cringe-making that failed European politicians who are mired in internal political and economic messes are seeking to aggrandize their images through high-stakes posturing against Russia.

Macron has said that his coalition of willing wants to have American backing for security. He added this week that if European troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces, they will retaliate.

Moscow has already stated categorically that no European or NATO troops deployed to Ukraine are acceptable. They will be targeted as combatants.

That means that if Paris and London go ahead with their military venture in Ukraine, a wider war is almost inevitable.

It is alarming that Macron has lately said that European troops may be dispatched to Ukraine “with or without American support.”

Laughably, though, neither the French nor the British have the military power for a serious intervention. French forces have been serially kicked out of several African countries that were former colonies. Meanwhile, British military chiefs have warned Starmer that his deployment plans are ill-conceived and amount to “political theater”.

Even the much-vaunted summit in Paris this week showed open cracks between allies. Several European states have stated they are not willing to join any military intervention in Ukraine. Italy, Poland, and Greece have expressed deep concern about where Macron and Starmer’s logic is leading.

It seems that the extreme delusions of grandeur harbored by former imperialist powers are beginning to unnerve even supposed partners.

Hopefully, it is becoming transparent that Britain and France are gambling with world security to satisfy their own egos.

Two world wars in the last century stemmed from European intrigue and duplicity.

Has-been European powers are at it again with their Orwellian doublespeak about ensuring “lasting peace”.

The reality is Russia has won the proxy war that NATO instigated. Even the normally gung-ho Americans realize that.

NATO has been caught with blood on its hands as the culprit of an epic war crime against Russia, using Ukraine as a pawn. Trump seems to want to extricate the Americans from the debacle. He can try to offload the blame onto the previous Biden administration.

However, the European elitist leaders can’t do that. They are the same lackeys who promulgated the criminal proxy war. Their only perceived option is to keep it going… until the European public wakes up and takes retribution on their criminal leaders.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

Chinese Embassy in Canada refutes allegations of China’s interference in Canadian elections

Global Times | March 26, 2025

In response to a media question regarding claims by an official from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that China might attempt to interfere in Canada’s elections, a spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada stated that China firmly opposes the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

It has been reported that an official from the CSIS stated that Canada’s elections could face the threat of foreign interference and the CSIS is closely monitoring China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, when questioned on this, the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada said that the Chinese side has repeatedly stated its position on the so-called issue of foreign interference, firmly opposing the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

China follows the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and has never, nor has any interest in, interfering in Canada’s internal affairs. The label of “foreign interference” will never be placed on China, the spokesperson said.

The Canadian election is a domestic issue for Canada and is not related to China. However, the Chinese side firmly opposes linking Canada’s internal affairs with China-related factors and firmly opposes using China as a topic in this context, the spokesperson added.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Europe Will Spend Itself Into ‘Bankruptcy’ If It Tries to Meet NATO’s Draconian New Defense Demands

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.03.2025

NATO is planning to ask its European and Canadian members to boost their weaponry and equipment stocks by about 30% over the next several years, informed sources have told Bloomberg. Sputnik asked a pair of leading German and French observers what this would mean for a region already suffering economic malaise and industrial decline.

Key alliance members like Germany and France would amass an unsustainable fiscal burden, be forced into debt and have to slash social programs if they accept NATO’s call for a 30% bump in new arms and equipment spending, AfD MP Dr. Rainer Rothfuss told Sputnik.

“We can take the example of Germany, where we had a kind of financial policy coup d’état this week” after the Bundestag voted to change the Basic Law to lift debt restrictions for defense spending, Rothfuss, who is also a veteran geopolitical analyst and consultant, said.

“The budget restraints that were even inscribed into our Constitution needed to be changed to get the financial flexibility to invest so much in defense. That shows us that it’s not a matter of priority spending, [but] a matter of, I would say, bankruptcy should this kind of policy be followed in the coming years, not only by Germany but by other countries as well,” the politician warned.

“France, for example,” has “an even more restrained budgetary situation,” Rothfuss said, “struggling economically to keep industry jobs,” and like Italy, should be investing in the competitiveness of its industries, not throwing money away on defense at a time when the security crisis in Europe is potentially closer to a peace deal than ever.

As for Germany, if its industrial decline worsens, it won’t be able to fund the EU to the tune of 25% of bloc spending, which would have serious knock-on effects for other members, the MP warned.

Jacques Sapir, director of studies at the Paris-based School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, says a 30% bump may not seem like a lot, and even manageable by some countries, like France, given the large-scale decline in NATO stockpiles of 40-60% after the end of the Cold War.

But others, like Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands may need between a 30%-50% increase in outlays, given the decline in defense production over the past three decades, he said, adding that this could take between three and five years to accomplish for countries like France, Germany and the UK, and probably more for Canada.

Last month, Bloomberg calculated that a European defense buildup and the continuation of the proxy war against Russia without US assistance could cost up to $3 trillion over ten years – a massive burden for a region suffering from perpetual economic stagnation and widespread deindustrialization.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Kursk Region Becomes Final Resting Place for NATO’s Top Tech

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – March 15, 2025

The near-total collapse of Ukraine’s operations in Kursk region has highlighted the folly of Zelensky’s obsession with throwing his best troops and materiel into a hopeless campaign. Here’s a selection of NATO equipment that has “found its peace in Kursk’s ground” over the past month, complete with photo and video evidence.

Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that Ukraine has lost nearly 400 tanks, almost 2,800 armored vehicles and over 1,000 guns and mortars in fighting in Kursk region to date, and says over 85% of territories once occupied by Ukrainian forces have been freed.

Liberated areas contain scores of wrecked, burned out, damaged or abandoned vehicles, including some of NATO’s most advanced equipment:

M2A2 Bradley: Over 300 of these do-it-all American infantry fighting vehicles have been sent to Ukraine, with nearly half confirmed lost by Oryx. They’ve been spotted among other wrecked NATO equipment in Kursk region.

M1 Abrams: 31 of these custom-made monkey model American main battle tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. 20 lost to date. One recently spotted being towed away intact in Kursk region. Australia plans to send 49 more.

Leopard 1 AVLB Biber: Armored vehicle-launched bridge built on a German Leopard-1 tank chassis. 30+ sent to Ukraine. One recently found abandoned, in mint shape, in a Kursk village.

M777: A third of the 180 US-made 155mm howitzers sent to Ukraine have been lost, damaged, or abandoned to date, with several recently captured almost intact in Kursk region.

Stryker: Over 400 of these Canadian-built armored fighting vehicles have been transferred to Ukraine. At least 55 destroyed, some caught on Russian MoD FPV drone videos moments before meeting their fate.

BMC Kirpi II: 200 of these Turkish MRAPs have been sent to serve in Ukraine’s elite units. Scores destroyed, damaged or captured by Russian forces, including in Kursk.

HMMWV: 5,000 of these ubiquitous US vehicles, better known as Humvees, have been delivered to Ukraine. Scores captured on Russian FPV drone cam footage in Kursk region.

Roshel Senator: Over 1,700 of the Canadian-built armored cars have been delivered to Ukraine. Also spotted in Russian FPV drone videos.

MAXXPRO: About 440 these Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) have been sent to Ukraine by the US, with at least 197 lost to date, including in fighting for Kursk.

M113: 1,000+ of these ancient tracked APCs have been sent to Ukraine by the US and allies, with nearly 300 destroyed to date, including in Kursk region.

BATT UMG: Ukraine has received 116 of these US-made vehicles. Rarely seen, some are known to have met their fate on the battlefields of Kursk.

Bushmaster PMV: About 120 of these Australian-made Protected Mobility Vehicles have gone to Ukraine, some ending up in Kursk region, and at least 25 lost to date.

M240: Besides heavy equipment, an array of NATO small arms has also been destroyed or captured in Kursk as well, among them the FN M240 7.62mm machinegun, delivered to Ukraine by the US and France. In February, a Russian trooper in Kursk captured an M240 after storming a Ukrainian position and bringing the gun back to friendly lines.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 15, 2025

Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.

In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.

In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.

One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.

This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.

Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.

The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.

In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.

However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.

It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.

What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.

Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.

All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.

From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

University crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments a grievous violation of Charter freedoms

By Laurie Adkin | Canadian Dimention | March 9, 2025

If the repression of Palestine solidarity protests on Canadian campuses is permitted to go unchallenged, we risk a serious erosion of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. The cases of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta highlight what is at stake.

In May 2024, the University of Calgary executive[1] called in the police to forcibly remove the Palestine solidarity encampment on that campus within hours of its appearance. The University of Alberta executive quickly followed suit, deploying riot police to drive members of the People’s University for Palestine (PU4P) from the campus. The executives thus revealed the vacuity of their institutional slogans and their unwillingness to defend university autonomy from political direction. University records[2] and media reports show that United Conservative Party government officials were urging the deployment of police against the universities’ students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters.

Since October 2023, university executives have been implementing security regimes that put their students, staff, and faculty under continual surveillance and subject them to policing that not long ago would have been unthinkable. The Kent report confirms that the University of Alberta Protective Services and the Edmonton Police Service collaborate in surveillance of the conversations, social media posts, and activities of students, staff, and faculty on campus (using patrols, video cameras, and facial recognition technology). Police presence on campus has become routine. Operating procedures for protests were amended unilaterally by executives on both campuses in May 2024 in anticipation of the Palestine solidarity encampments. The result is that the environment for freedom of expression on campuses has been significantly degraded. However, the failure of university executives to stand up for constitutional freedoms is a grievous abdication of democratic duty to all citizens. Given what is at stake, it is urgent that court challenges to their actions be initiated, and that those responsible be required to apologize and make reparation to those who were traumatized and whose freedoms of political expression and assembly were unreasonably denied.

The UCalgary’s executive has tried to establish the legality of its actions by commissioning a consultancy report described by legal experts as “superficial.” The UAlberta executive no doubt hopes that the Report on the Encampment they commissioned from retired Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice, Adèle Kent, will close the book on its decision to deploy police against the PU4P. The Kent report concluded that “the administration’s ability to have the police dismantle the encampment was reasonable and justifiable under the Charter” (78). This opinion—which is not a judicial ruling—is unsubstantiated by evidence and hinges on an incomplete (and often contradictory) review of the legal tests required to arrive at such a conclusion.

UAlberta President Bill Flanagan issued a cluster of statements in May 2024 attempting to justify the forcible removal of the PU4P by police on the grounds that it posed “serious and potentially life-threatening risks” to “university community members and members of the public,” and that its removal was intended to “ensure public safety and security.” The evidence—including highly credible first-hand testimony—effectively eviscerated these claims; even Justice Kent and campus security agreed the PU4P presented no threats to anyone’s safety at the time the police were sent in.

What the executive and the justice turned to, then, to justify the camp’s removal was the possibility of future threats that could be (and were) imagined by the president’s executive council and the police. One fear they raised was that counter-protestors might show up on campus and altercations between the groups might ensue. There was no indication at the time that such events were likely, but even if they had been, we should question the logic of the argument that is being made here for the denial of Charter freedoms of expression and assembly. If the possibility of a future counter-protest that might be violent is considered grounds to ban otherwise peaceful political expression and assembly, then effectively, these Charter freedoms are null and void.

The “community safety” pretext offered by President Flanagan further lacks credibility because alternatives were available to ensure the safety of the PU4P participants that entailed far less risk of harm than the option that was chosen (sending in riot police at the crack of dawn). In this regard, the executive’s decision clearly fails the Charter tests of “least impairment” and “rationality” in relation to its supposed objective. Members of the executive chose not to meet with the PU4P, instead spending hours in “crisis management” meetings among themselves and with government officials and the police, grasping at pretexts to simply get rid of the protestors without having to answer their demands. They misled students and the public about their intentions, concealing their decision to deploy the police from student leaders and implying that negotiations were in progress when this was not true. This is the kind of bad faith treatment to which pro-Palestinian student activists have become accustomed.

We cannot overlook the likelihood that these Palestinian solidarity encampments were labelled security threats because of the relentless pressures on university administrators exerted by Zionist politicians and pro-Zionist government officials to characterize any criticism of Israel as threatening to the “safety” of Jewish students and faculty. Such pressures have been well-documented in the cases of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, and are exhibited in many of the submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation of “antisemitism” on Canadian campuses (May 2024). Notably, the committee’s December 2024 report recommended, among other measures, that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which encompasses anti-Zionism or criticism of the state of Israel.

In contrast, we see clearly how little the safety of “community members” from racialized Muslim backgrounds (and non-Zionist Jews) has mattered for university executives—how quickly their safety was sacrificed to achieve higher-ranked priorities. The repression of pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses is consistent with the denial of rights and the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on a massive scale by Israel and its military and diplomatic allies.

It can have escaped no one’s notice that we live in times of rising authoritarianism. If Canadians accept the flimsy, speculative pretexts offered by university authorities to crush peaceful protest—if we do not subject them to rigorous Charter tests—we risk the further erosion of our political rights and freedoms. If these rights may be trampled underfoot on university campuses without legal challenge, where are they protected? Constitutional lawyers, don your armour.

Laurie E. Adkin is a professor emerita in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

References

1. By “executive” I refer to the president, the president’s executive team, or council, and the Board of Governors. While responsibility for the decisions falls ultimately on the shoulders of the university presidents, the reviews have been vague in identifying who authorized what and when. Some members of the executive team at UCalgary were away from the university when the decision to call in the police was taken; none, however, have subsequently resigned their positions. In the UAlberta case, we know that the Chair of the Board was closely involved in the decision-making about the PU4P, but we do not know if other governors on the Board were consulted; none have publicly expressed their agreement or disagreement with the action that was taken. This is typical of the lack of meaningful accountability of these board members to both internal constituencies and the broader public.↩

2. Its flaws notwithstanding, the UAlberta-commissioned Kent report provides very useful information in its excerpts from interviews with executive decision-makers and the appended (though redacted) “Rolling Update” on meetings, decisions, etc., maintained by the Crisis Management Team. Additional records were obtained by journalist Jeremy Appel through a FOIPP application to the UAlberta.↩

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »