"I've never seen this intensity of anger," Trudeau says after rally cancelled due to safety​


Looks like the romance books are tuning Trudeau's synthetic emotional center to such an extent that he is now able to express all the damage he has dealt to Canadians without shedding a tear.

Yes, indeed the romance seems to be ending, maybe his days are numbered, will have to wait and see what the outcome of the up coming election will be. But on a downer, remember that Chrystia Freeland is the other candidate for the Liberals, and she does have support from the Ukrainian population living in Canada. Personally, I would look upon this as going out of the frying pan and into the fire, if she was elected.
 
There's an article which is actually being strongly exchanged in the french community, it's in english. It's from Dr RobetO. Young and it's about a detailed investigation of the components of the vaccines, it seems to be an huge work that was released.

The truth is coming out!



str.png


Figure 4 b): All roads lead to Rome Israel?🤔
 
Can't confirm this video, no text attached to it so take it with a grain of salt.

Here's the write up


Rumors on social media is all these soldiers were jabbed.
 
Wicked sense of humor -


And here's a little hint as to why the leopard changed his spots:

'Interesting Timing': Fauci Touts Monoclonal Antibody Treatments One Day After FDA Approves Pfizer Vax

Aug 23, 2021: COVID vaccine EUA, conditional upon there being "no adequate and approved available alternatives," is removed. Vaccines receive full FDA approval. [still lying]

Aug 24, 2021: Fauci finally touts monoclonal antibodies as an effective treatment.

Also interesting:
The monoclonal antibody treatment appears to be only available for people who HHS considers "high risk."

hhs-high-risk.jpg


mAb-risk-factors.png

I can't help but wonder if the evidence piling up that vaccines appear to be failing is causing Fauci et al. to finally look to alternatives.
The existence of effective treatments would nullify the EUAs, but the monoclonal antibody treatments were always limited -
Several antibody treatments were greenlit for use in limited cases by the FDA through emergency use authorizations in May 2021 and Nov 2020.
- and HCQ + were shoved under the rug.
 
Sydney is getting yet more draconian. For people living in local government areas (LGAs) of concern (ie supposed covid hotspots), they cannot leave their LGA unless they have a permit with a valid reason to leave (eg authorised workers) plus either have had 1st dose of the vaxx or have a medical exemption which they must carry with them at all times. I highly doubt many doctors will give medical exemptions for fear of being investigated themselves. As an aside, the LGAs of concern are either high migrant &/or lower socioeconomic communities -perhaps the govt. feels they‘ll get less pushback from them. Across Sydney, people are only allowed out for an hour and only for food, exercise, work (essential) or medical issues and within a 5 km radius.

They’re trying to incentivise vaxxed people in NSW by offering them an extra hour outdoors. Joe’s tweet is so appropriate:

View attachment 48796

NSW police have been given yet more powers: they can shutdown ‘non-compliant’ businesses they deem is a risk to public health, lockdown whole apartment blocks so that no one is allowed to enter/leave, and issue hefty fines for non compliance of covid measures. I’ve read about people being fined for walking their dog without a mask, as the police deemed walking isn’t ‘strenuous’ enough to not be wearing a mask. Current rules are you don’t need to wear a mask for strenuous exercise outdoors but what’s strenuous differs from person to person. Many grey areas in these ‘rules’ which really seems to depend on the discretion of the police.

NSW - New protections and compliance rules

NSW police business worksite powers

To add to confusion caused by conflicting messages, NSW government updated it's stance on discrimination due to infectious disease in July this year:

Infectious diseases discrimination​

What is infectious diseases discrimination?​

Infectious diseases discrimination is against the law.
It is when you have been treated unfairly because:
  • you have an infectious disease
  • people think you have an infectious disease
  • you used to have an infectious disease
  • you may acquire an infectious disease in the future
  • you are the friend, relative or colleague of a person with an infectious disease.
Indirect discrimination is also against the law. This is when there is a rule or requirement that is the same for everyone but unfairly affects people with infectious diseases, and is not reasonable in the circumstances.

In what areas is infectious diseases discrimination against the law?​

Infectious diseases discrimination is against the law in certain public places, including:
  • workplaces, such as when you apply for a job or while you are at work
  • employment agencies, such as when you use recruitment companies
  • when you access goods and services, such as when you go shopping, do your banking or access medical services
  • state education, such as when you apply for study and during your studies
  • accommodation, such as when you rent accommodation 
  • industrial organisations, such as membership of a union
  • qualifying bodies, such as an institute that issues qualifications
  • at registered clubs (clubs that sell alcohol or have gambling machines), such as when you try to enter or join a club.

Infectious diseases and privacy laws​

If an employer, colleague or service provider tells someone about your infectious disease without your consent, this could lead to discrimination that is against the law. It may also be against privacy laws. For more information on privacy laws contact the Information and Privacy Commission NSW.
Some infectious diseases must be notified to authorities because of the possible impact on the community. This means that a healthcare practitioner may have to notify a Public Health Unit about your infectious disease. For more information, contact your local Public Health Unit.

Public health and safety exceptions​

In some instances, an employer or service provider may be required to comply with a law that involves discriminating against certain individuals. For example:
  • Public health or occupational health and safety laws may prevent them from assigning medical or food-handling responsibilities to individuals in the acute stage of certain infectious diseases, such as hepatitis A and hepatitis C. For more information, please contact your local Public Health Unit.
  • If there is an outbreak of an infectious disease (such as whooping cough or measles) in a day care centre, preschool or primary school, the organisation's director or principal can be instructed by the Public Health Unit to exclude a child who is not immunised until the outbreak is over.
However, there are only rare occasions when health and safety obligations mean that someone can discriminate against you because you have an infectious disease. This means that it is generally against the law to:
  • refuse to hire you or provide you with a service, accommodation or education
  • make you have a blood test
  • segregate you from other staff or clients
  • dismiss you from your job
  • breach your confidentiality or privacy on the grounds that others have the right to know about your disease
  • treat you unfairly because they think you are gay or use drugs, and therefore assume that you have an infectious disease.


I'm starting to get the feeling that not all in the higher levels of authority are confident that their plans will work and are preparing to pass the buck if there is a chance that there is a repeat of the Nuremberg trials. Businesses and different industry sectors are attemtping to mandate vaccines, but politicians are often using ambiguous language around mandates. Police are enforcing directives that are being implemented without parliamentary oversight - basically beyond the scope of the law.

Maybe it's just that at a higher level, they were aware that all they had to do was set up the circumstances and let programming, personality disorder, ego or ignorance do the rest.

In other news, the truckie strike planned for Aug 31 that was originally stated to have been about truckies against mandatory vaccines seems to be splitting into different factions. The employees of two major hauling companies have gone on strike for better working conditions, the others seem to be striking over not just mandatory vaccinations but the whole handling of the virus.

There has been the odd comment that the strikes will play into the agenda by causing food and medical supply shortages. Some truckies are calling for the blocking of major highways, others think it's more reasonable to just park up and allow regular traffic to continue. Some truckies are threatening other truckies who are choosing not to take part in the strike.

A friend who has worked in the industry as a driver gave the heads up that after the strike food and other services generally replenish pretty fast after a strike but it takes a while longer for fuel to catch up so she has suggested along with stocking up for shortages to make sure that there is an extra supply of fuel and gas before the strike. No doubt the strike will push prices up.
 
FREE AUSTRALIA: Hey it looks as though there's more to add to the truckers shutting down the whole country on August 31st. The people are going to pay their governor's residence a friendly visit also on the 31st.

 
Also Rocco Galati has filed a notice of Civil Liability in BC against Vaccine passports...
Rocco is no legal slouch, and has had peoples best interests at heart - he knows his way around the courts, including the supreme court even though things tend to flow like molasses out of it. He well knows old tort laws.

He discusses a distinction here (the video you had, Joan) at one point regarding vaccine damage at work, when the employee agreed to be vaccinated as part of work, can get rather dicy. If someone (a worker) is in the position that they have to take the employers dictates, the employer should be well advised in signed documents that they will be held accountable.

Rocco warns against employers parachuting in clause that a worker agrees upon (without knowing even), when their original contract to work never agreed with the later. These would be little addendums of some type perhaps. So, watch for these and call them on it. This is often the difference between new and older employees hired under different terms of agreement. Yet it is contract law.

It would take a big day and more to chart this out, yet the civil claim has 363 points against pretty much everyone in the BC government, and reads like this whole thread; the whodunnit - who and how and their detractors (like many featured on SoTT). It is really offers up a good timeline, and Rocco even makes reference to everything Bonnie Henry said against masks, and her work in Pakistan for the WHO and polio.

Anyway, that was a refreshing scan, thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom