Canadian Orwellian world: Lockdowns, vaccines passports and more

[Benjamin]

A few inches in height, and also one has the full backing of the CBC.

Heh. Only because they're paid to. Mercenary influencers. And those two should get a room.

 

[Benjamin]

And those two should get a room.

... at the Trump International Hotel and Tower: Toronto. Discounts.

You know, after a thought, I wondered if there was another reason Pierre regained his federal seat in an Alberta riding. If Alberta separates, and if it came to an election between Danielle Smith and Pierre, I think Pierre would win. He has 80% support here.

32nd Alberta general election

...the next election is scheduled for October 18, 2027. However, the Election Act is subject to the powers of the lieutenant governor of Alberta to dissolve the legislature before that time, in accordance with the usual conventions of the Westminster parliamentary system.

Just a thought.

 

[Benjamin]

This is a really good interview with Desiree Fixler. The focus is on Mark Carney, his mind and Net Zero agenda but it broadens to describe the narrow mindset of the people in the WEF. (50:54)

 

[meadow_wind]

In the series of constatations of Canada's decline, in Quebec province, one in two women who are victims of violence and have the courage to ask for help for emergency accommodation are met with a closed door.

Refusons d’aider les femmes à moitié

Dans le cadre des 12 jours d’action pour l’élimination de la violence faite aux femmes, Catherine Ethier et ses cosignataires se demandent pourquoi une femme victime de violence sur deux qui a le courage de demander de l’aide pour un hébergement d’urgence se bute à une porte close.

www.lapresse.ca

"As you read these lines, a woman is trying to get help from a shelter for women who are victims of domestic violence. This call, far from being a trivial matter, is undoubtedly the result of long and careful consideration. She may have hesitated before dialing this number that no one ever wants to call in their lifetime. One does not declare oneself a victim of domestic violence overnight.

It is a complex process, fraught with fear, doubt, profound shame, and the grief that is rarely discussed: the grief of recognizing that life with this person one once loved has become unbearable. Dangerous.
(...)
Now imagine being refused the help that was described to you as a lifeline pulling you out of a volcano. Imagine being put on an eight-week waiting list for assistance without accommodation. Imagine browsing classified ads and realizing you can't afford any of the available rents, and that in the midst of a housing crisis, you have no choice but to stay home with your abuser.

Imagine the loss of confidence and hope. "This appeal requires immense courage. As I write this, one in two requests for accommodation is refused. Out of a total of 19,306 requests, shelters and support centers have had to say no nearly 10,000 times, much to their regret."
(...)
Shelters and support centers do more than simply provide shelter for women fleeing abusive homes; their responsibilities are immense, at all hours of the day and night. They not only answer every call from women in distress, but also try to find them a bed as quickly as possible, even when all the rooms in their shelter are full.

They assess each woman's risk level with sensitivity and foresight, participate in rapid response teams, and juggle supporting a crying child, a woman in shock arriving with her suitcase, a busy phone line, court appointments, and the struggle to find housing—all while working 24/7 on a salary that pales in comparison to other, more attractive sectors. All this, in addition to running the shelter, ensuring everyone is well-fed, reassured, and comfortable, that the environment is warm and welcoming, that the bathroom is clean, and that a surprise water leak is dealt with in the middle of the night. Just another day in the life.

These remarkable women, who perform miracles day in and day out, work in precarious conditions with the strength of a community that refuses, and will always refuse, to give up. If the shelters are overflowing, if we can no longer support every woman in danger, our safety net will crumble. It's an absolute catastrophe.

So far in 2025, Quebec has recorded nine femicides in the context of domestic violence."

 

[Voyageur]

The following has recently been put on by legal representatives at Rights Probe. Many Canadians may feel it in their bones, that it is all coming soon - all laid out with provisions to bring back other Bills sitting on shelves.

All this seems rather lockstep to the UK and other EU places, simply mechanisms to help keep the current wicked leaders in power, as some have suggested.

Will add the discussion and some highlights of the Bill/ACT - and one should listen to their discussion nuances over each part.

Could very much be wrong, yet have a sense that on the eve of Parliaments Christmas break, it could be introduced for vote and passed. After that, it will be given Royal Assent.

What Bills C-8 and C-9 mean for your freedom of expression​

A panel discussion held by the Free Speech Union of Canada (FSU) on November 4, 2025, with FSU directors Prof. Bruce Pardy, Lisa Bildy, and Hannah Park Roche.

On the table: Bill C-9 and its potential to create a “thought police” scenario, where citizens mired in a legal minefield run the risk of severe consequences for what used to be considered civil liberties and the fabric of Canadian democracy. At stake is our freedom to think, say, and believe as we choose—yes, even the right to hate.

Also on the table: Bill C-8, which would grant the government sweeping powers to cut off telecommunications services to individuals deemed a “threat” without the need for any criminal offense. We only need consider the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa to fathom the possibilities of how this legislation could be weaponized.

The primary focus concerns Bill C-9 and its capacity to unleash a chilling wave of censorship that criminalizes emotions rather than actions. Prof. Pardy warns this could pave the way for a two-tier justice system, where individuals are prosecuted not for their deeds but for their thoughts, echoing the oppressive tactics of authoritarian regimes. He provides the following example of the strange(r) land we may soon live in:

“Let’s say you have somebody committing an assault. They commit it for hate. They commit it for greed. They commit it because they don’t care. Which of those two? Which of those three things is worse? If you assault somebody randomly on the street because you’re a psychopath and don’t care, is that better or worse than if you attack somebody because you hate them? For my money, that’s irrelevant. The crime is in the violence.”

That logic is absent in the context of Bills C-8 and C-9, which lack the legal certainty critical to the rule of law; this erosion of certainty is already long evident in Canada and would be further jeopardized by these proposed legislations. Canada need only look to the U.K. for what’s in store: arrests daily for merely offensive comments and a place on the register for “non-crime hate incidents” ...

Follow the discussion as the panel examines the ramifications of these bills on debate, unpopular opinion, faith, symbols, identifiable groups, protest actions, and (so much) more.

Good luck, Canada.

 

[Jefferson]

This is 'Orwellian' in the sense that it is part of the destructive divide and conquer strategy that has been taking place in Canada. I'm not sure if there is another thread tracking the so-called indigenous/ native activity so feel free to move this post.

Reinterpreting all laws through an external UN doctrine is not empowerment or reconciliation or whatever they're calling it, but it is a calculated strategy to sow division among Canadians while elites centralize authority behind all of this legal uncertainty.

B.C.'s reconciliation nightmare gets even worse
Court rules all province's laws must be interpreted through UNDRIP

Adam Pankratz: B.C.'s reconciliation nightmare gets even worse
Court rules all province's laws must be interpreted through UNDRIP

By Adam Pankratz
Published Dec 09, 2025
National Post

It has been clear for some months now that David Eby and the B.C. NDP’s approach to Indigenous reconciliation would have ruinous consequences for British Columbia’s economy. Last Friday, the situation got even worse, as a new court ruling poured more cold water on economic activity in the province and opened the door to every B.C. law being subject to interpretation through a United Nations human rights document. The implications for British Columbia could not be much more dire.

On Friday, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Gitxaala and Ehattesaht First Nations that B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — which seeks to align the laws of British Columbia with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — did in fact affirm UNDRIP as “the interpretive lens through which B.C. laws must be viewed and the minimum standards against which they should be measured.” That is to say that all B.C. laws, even if they have not yet been changed, are immediately subject to interpretation through UNDRIP, when the NDP government had explicitly said that DRIPA was not designed to strike down existing B.C. laws.

A key paragraph in the ruling should raise the alarm for any business considering investing in British Columbia. Paragraph 181 lays out Justice Gail Dickson’s view as to where there could be future potential for dispute arising from DRIPA and the current law of British Columbia. The ruling foresees five areas that are so broad that the court is opening up any and all B.C. laws to interpretation through UNDRIP.

The ruling states areas for dispute could be: “i) whether there is an inconsistency between a British Columbia law and UNDRIP (as in this case); ii) whether the type of inconsistency in issue must be addressed by the Crown taking measures; iii) what measures should be taken; iv) the adequacy of the consultation process; or v) the meaning or extent of ‘cooperation.’”

The ruling then continues to say that the above areas would be “justiciable,” meaning they could be litigated in court. To quote the ruling: “In every instance, justiciability concerns may arise, and, if they do, the court will need to determine whether, given the nature of the dispute, including the relevant articles of UNDRIP, the matter is justiciable.”

Taking a step back, it seems almost impossible to think of any area of the B.C. economy (or indeed any area of B.C. life) which would not potentially be touched by one of those future areas of dispute, and thus open the path for a court to force the UNDRIP doctrine onto every aspect of life in British Columbia.

The significance of the ruling cannot be overstated, given that the court has deemed that UNDRIP must be the “interpretive lens” through which all B.C. laws are viewed. Two articles in particular from the UN document are informative of what that means.

Article 26 states “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use.” That means: you claim it, you own it. So is there no Crown land in B.C. now? Do parks exist for the public or are they First Nations property?

Article 32.2 of UNDRIP states that a country must “consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

“Informed consent” could mean a First Nations veto over resource projects or future economic development and at a minimum the ruling opens up all B.C. laws and programs to endless challenges for not being consistent with UNDRIP. Education, health care, the list needn’t just include resource projects or infrastructure as UNDRIP is a wide and all encompassing document.

Premier Eby has said he’s concerned about the court’s recent ruling and interpretation of the law, suggesting the government may amend DRIPA to ensure the legislature, not the courts, remain in control of how UNDRIP is implemented in the province. No one should believe him or his government, though. Since taking power Eby’s tenure has been marked by secrecy and duplicity on any issue involving B.C.’s First Nations. Whether hiding land use deals or failing to protect private property rights, Eby’s NDP has zero credibility left on this file.

Following the court ruling last Friday, more bad economic news is now a certainty, as businesses look at British Columbia as a province no longer ruled and governed by its own laws, but rather the esoteric imaginings of a United Nations human rights committee.

Adam Pankratz is a lecturer at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

 

[Josi]

Canadians are in serious trouble. This is a very troubling documentary, Making a Killing.

"OneBC Caucus is proud to present Making a Killing: Reconciliation, Genocide, and Plunder in Canada. Making a Killing is a feature documentary film exposing the massive scandal behind the taking of wealth, land, and power from the Canadian public to benefit indigenous tribes. It debunks the worst lie in Canadian history: the lie that 215 bodies were found at the Kamloops Residential School and that Canadians committed a mass murder against indigenous children. Making a Killing is the first documentary film produced by an elected caucus."