Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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 | , , , , | Leave a 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 | , , , , , , , | Leave a 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

COVID-19 Vaccines Harms: What and When BC Public Health Knew

Review of FOI F23-1799 and BC Public Health’s Handling of COVID-19 Vaccines AEFI – Part 1

By Lex Acker | Truth, Investing, and Freedom | February 28, 2025

Background

In April 2023, Lee Turner, of Doak Shireff Lawyers LLP, took over conduct of the defence of Dr. Charles Hoffe vs. the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. Mr. Turner subsequently filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request (F23-1799) with the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to obtain data on Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI). FOI F23-1799 can be accessed at this link.

FOI F23-1799 was released in June 2024 and comprised over 1,300 pages of internal emails between BC CDC staff, Bonnie Henry, Reka Gustafson, and Monika Naus (then head of BC CDC), along with dozens of AEFI reports.

Upon reviewing FOI F23-1799, I noted key elements: discussions of AEFIs in emails, screenshots of non-public AEFI reports available through an intranet, and public-facing AEFI reports presented in chronological order. This arrangement made it possible to determine what BC public health officials like Bonnie Henry, the BC CDC and all 50+ medical health officers scattered over BC health authorities knew and when they knew it.

I reached an unsettling conclusion: BC CDC had manipulated the definition of Serious Adverse Events Following Immunization to lower the reported rates of Serious AEFIs in public-facing reports, thereby concealing the true risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. I publicly shared this finding on June 14, 2024, in a comment on Byram Bridle’s post titled Breaking News: BC Centre for Disease Control Caught Lying and Withholding Important Public Health Data.

While my expertise is not in medical science, I specialize in detecting and documenting corporate and institutional misconduct. My background is in financial statement analysis. I worked as a hedge fund research analyst and compliance officer for a boutique investment firm. I have about 15 years of independent financial research and analysis experience. My focus is uncovering white-collar fraud. I’m not a forensic accountant by any measure; I’m just someone with somewhat odd proclivities for large sets of unstructured data and enjoy immersing myself in new topics.

The Case Against Dr. Hoffe

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC cancelled its February 11, 2022 citation against Dr. Hoffe on February 5, 2025. According to one media outlet, this was done because of a “material change of circumstances.”

The College accused Dr. Hoffe of professional misconduct; specifically spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s an excerpt of the College’s accusations:

“… publicly expressing that the COVID-19 vaccinations cause microscopic blood clots that cause serious neurological harm, female infertility, and a high number of deaths that is not recognized by public health; …”

Many other doctors were publicly denouncing the COVID-19 vaccines and were persecuted by the College. However, the level of persecution against Dr. Charles Hoffe is particular. The College retained eight experts against Dr. Hoffe. Why is that?

In early 2021, Dr. Hoffe submitted a temporally- and vaccine lot-associated cluster of 11 AEFI reports to Interior Health, 10 of which involved Moderna lot #300042698, administered between January 18 and February 5, 2021.

As Dr. Hoffe began filing AEFI reports in early 2021—most notably in April and May— and went on public tours in BC warning the public about the harms of COVID-19 vaccines his actions posed a direct threat to a state narrative that sought to suppress information about vaccine-related harm. His findings challenged the political and ideological foundation underpinning the mass vaccination program and the totalitarian controls over the population that came along with it.

The evidence in FOI F23-1799 suggests that Bonnie Henry, the BC CDC, all health authorities, and all 50+ Medical Health Officers in BC were fully aware of these issues. Dr. Hoffe’s real “offence” was exposing what the BC government concealed from the public since early 2021. Dr. Hoffe’s AEFI reports constituted a cluster of AEFI associated with unexpected harms which required public health authorities to investigate and disclose to the public.

This post, and a few more to come, will cover my findings and analysis of how BC public authorities handled the COVID-19 vaccine AEFIs. … continue

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Five Eyes Would Go Blind Without US Backing: US Army Vet and Intel Specialist

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 09.03.2025

Britain’s intelligence establishment reportedly started “rationing” what info to pass on to the US after Trump’s election, and his thrashing of Zelensky at the White House last month has sparked talk of a ‘breakaway’ ‘Four Eyes’ intel-sharing pact. Sputnik reached out to a leading US military intel specialist for details on what this could entail.

Sources told The Mail on Sunday that while joint work intercepting electronic communications could be ‘hard to disentangle’, human intelligence by agents on the ground could be held back from being shared with the US, especially “raw intelligence, which can be very exposing of sources if it falls into the wrong hands.”

Diplomatic sources, meanwhile, told the newspaper that the US intelligence establishment is “in a state of panic” over Trump’s approach, and actively destroying files on assets in Russia.

Five Eyes Without US is Nothing

“The US share is huge,” retired US Army Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen told Sputnik. “There’s very little the remaining Five Eyes would have without the US,” the observer noted, highlighting that America provides:

  • Immense signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities including information from satellites (about 5,000 of the world’s roughly 8,000 satellites are American), in Rasmussen’s estimation
  • a military feed from the US Defense Intelligence Agency
  • substantive human intel
  • real-time open-source info collection and analysis capabilities
  • security intelligence via cooperation between the FBI and the Five Eyes’ allies’ analogs.

If the Five Eyes were to break up, Rasmussen doesn’t exclude the creation of new, regional intel-sharing alliances, like:

  • Australia and New Zealand partnering up with Japan and South Korea
  • The UK ramping up intel cooperation with France and Germany

As for the Five Eyes’ “global reach, the fusion of information, the mass experience, the analytical tools that are commonly operated…almost all the major ones have either been operated completely by the United States, or via a shared operation with the United States and another [country],” the observer summed up.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK eyes intelligence alliance to share data with Ukraine

Al Mayadeen | March 9, 2025

The UK government is considering forming a new intelligence-sharing subgroup within the Five Eyes alliance in reaction to US President Donald Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday, citing anonymous defense officials.

The requests for the effort apparently arose after the US suspended information collaboration with Kiev and prevented the UK and other allies from sending American intelligence to Ukraine.

A new proposed subgroup would greenlight intelligence cooperation without a US veto, according to the British daily.

According to the Daily Mail, the new project is not about abandoning Five Eyes but rather about establishing a new Four Eyes suborganization within it.

Simultaneously, US allies are mulling lowering the intelligence they share with Washington, citing worries about the administration’s conciliatory attitude to Russia, according to NBC News.

These include “Israel” and Saudi Arabia, as well as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, with the latter four being members of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence cooperation.

Officials in New Zealand, Australia, and Saudi Arabia declined to comment, while authorities in the United Kingdom, Canada, and “Israel” refuted the accusations.

The United States has temporarily suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine following a notable rift between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed on Wednesday.

The decision follows a public row between the two leaders during a meeting in the Oval Office last week, which also led to the suspension of critical US military aid to Ukraine.

Speaking to Fox Business, Ratcliffe stated that the pause in intelligence cooperation is linked to Trump’s concerns about Zelensky’s dedication to the peace process with Russia.

“President Trump had a real question about whether President Zelensky was committed to the peace process,” Ratcliffe said. He noted that the suspension is temporary and expressed confidence that the US would soon resume its close partnership with Ukraine.

For Ukraine, which is engaged in a war with Russia, US intelligence support is as vital as military supplies. The sudden halt in assistance has shocked many Ukrainians, who rely heavily on American backing in their war with Russia.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen hopes to turn EU into ‘defense union’ for $867bln

Al Mayadeen | March 9, 2025

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that she believes her proposed new 800 billion euro ($867 billion) military plan will transform the European Union into a “defense union”.

During Thursday’s EU leaders’ conference on defense, ReArm Europe received unanimous support, according to von der Leyen.

“You are familiar with the 800 billion [euro] package for defense, and that is historic, this can be the foundation of a European defense union,” she said.

“We will drive the ReArm Europe plan forward with full force,” she stated at a news conference in Brussels marking the first 100 days of her second term as President of the European Commission.

Von der Leyen went on to say that the EU should “team up with other like-minded countries,” such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, to “unleash the full potential in the face of concrete threats.”

Von der Leyen recently put forward an initiative to attract loans of up to 150 billion euros to the defense industry over the next four years and to allow EU countries to free up another 650 billion euros to increase defense purchases and develop the defense industry.

The European Union is ramping up efforts to develop its military-industrial sector, drawing insights from the Ukraine war. A statement issued following a European Council meeting on Thursday outlined key areas for defense investment, particularly in air defense, advanced drone technology, and precision-guided weaponry.

According to the European Council’s conclusions, the bloc is focusing on strengthening its military capabilities in coordination with NATO and the European Defence Agency. The document specified that priorities include air and missile defense, long-range artillery, missile stockpiles, and anti-drone technologies.

“[The European Council] identifies the following first list of priority areas for action at EU level in the field of capabilities taking into account the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, in accordance with the work already done in the framework of the European Defence Agency and in full coherence with NATO: air and missile defence; artillery systems, including deep precision strike capabilities; missiles and ammunition; drones and anti-drone systems…,” the statement read.

This move comes as part of a broader strategy known as ReArm Europe, an initiative aimed at significantly boosting the EU’s defense capabilities while reducing reliance on external allies. Under this plan, EU leaders have proposed unlocking up to €800 billion to finance military advancements, primarily through defense loans, budget repurposing, and private capital mobilization. The European Investment Bank (EIB) may also lift restrictions on lending to defense firms to support this push.

Von der Leyen has described this as a necessary response to “a clear and present danger” facing the region, marking a shift in the EU’s traditional defense posture. The initiative also aligns with recent calls from the US for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security, especially amid concerns about potential shifts in American foreign policy under a future administration.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »