TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In 2019, Parliament removed the crime of spreading false news from the Canadian Criminal Code, a provision that existed in the 1954 version. This raises questions about the trustworthiness of the government, especially when it comes to handling public health and media accountability. The government has been criticized for its financial practices, restricting access to effective treatments, and promoting vaccines without thorough investigations into their safety. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets like CBC and CTV are perceived to operate without consequences for misinformation. This situation challenges the belief that elected representatives are looking out for the public's best interests.

We will unite for freedom by repealing censorship law C-11, bringing back our news, and eliminating mandatory digital ID. We'll also ban my ministers from involvement in the World Economic Forum, assert parental rights in teaching sexuality and gender, and redirect funds from foreign dictatorships and multinational organizations to rebuild our military and support our troops. Above all, we'll provide opportunities and dignity to our brave veterans who fought for our freedom. Thank you.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning TV in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights. It is important to be skeptical about products and protect our collective duty to question.

Canada is a place of free expression where individuals and communities can openly and strongly express themselves. Being a democracy means working together, listening to each other, and respecting one another. Moving forward, the most important thing is protecting.

Can we discuss the implications of free speech in pubs? The proposed employment bill from Angela Rayner is concerning, as it could restrict conversations in public spaces. If discussing sensitive topics like transgender issues leads to complaints, it might result in people being silenced or even removed from pubs. This situation feels reminiscent of a dystopian reality where only approved speech is allowed. While the intention behind the bill is to prevent workplace harassment, its wording could lead to overreach, stifling open dialogue. Existing laws already address harassment; instead of adding more regulations, we should focus on teaching respect and politeness to foster a more open environment.

Republicans on the floor criticized AB 2098 for violating doctors' free speech rights. Despite warnings, the majority party and the governor passed the speech restriction law. Governor Newsom admitted that he would have approached the pandemic differently. They hope he signs the bill to overturn the unconstitutional ban on free speech. Free speech means tolerating those who disagree because they are often historically right. They ask for an aye vote on the bill. No further discussion or debate occurs. Senator Rockey is unsure how to respond but encourages voting based on conscience. The secretary is asked to call the roll.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning television in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights to be skeptical about certain products.

Odessa Orlewitz hosts Liberty Talk Canada and introduces Doctor Dimitri, a senior data scientist with the Government of Canada (employee of CBSA). Dimitri says he is coming forward publicly with his full story as his case becomes public in two weeks. He states he did not disclose his medical status or discuss private correspondences, but he began sharing data-driven insights from within the system, building a portfolio of resources over the last five years. He says he has included his discipline letter and investigation report, which detail violations and allegations he defended against for talking about data he analyzed. Dimitri describes a key, simple piece of evidence: deaths following COVID by vaccination status, published by the Public Health Agency of Canada. He argues that vaccine efficacy appears not to show significant improvement and that a technique he calls “algorithmic bias” or data skewing is used to hide the inconvenient truth. He says the data show that what researchers want to know—deaths among unvaccinated versus vaccinated—cannot be accurately inferred when data before vaccination campaigns are counted in, thus diluting comparisons. He frames this as a political interference issue, not a new phenomenon, comparing it to past concerns raised by Shiv Chopra and continuing into 2021. Dimitri emphasizes fear of reprisal in the public service. He notes that, in public-service surveys, fear of reprisal is highest in the Health Products regulation unit, which he says he uncovered, and claims colleagues would testify but fear losing their jobs. He explains that his own union activities and leadership seminars since 2019 involved teaching data visualization tools (including PSESS) to observe datasets and detect issues. He recounts that after pushing data on vaccination and COVID, he faced multiple disciplinary actions: five days of suspension without pay for discussing information conflicting with government messaging; an eight-day suspension; and a ten-day suspension, all connected to the hearing and his broader aim of alerting on red flags. Dimitri states that the hearing concerns limits to the duty of loyalty and insubordination in a democratic country like Canada. He argues that data people should be allowed to publish information that could challenge official messaging. He also notes that, outside Canada, Alberta passed a Regulated Professions Act and a Neutrality Act to protect free speech across regulated professions, suggesting a national parallel is needed for public servants. He says he will post updates in a newsletter and provide links to evidence and to testimonials from colleagues, professors from Ottawa U, and other data scientists who assisted with analyses, including Pfizer papers. Dimitri recounts personal context: he took his own vaccine dose and has presented his case publicly, including short videos from a journalist documentary and his Freedom Convoy presentation. He asserts that mainstream media, such as CBC, did not interview him during the convoy era, implying a cover-up by mainstream outlets. Odessa urges viewers to attend Dimitri’s hearing, visit his website, and share the information widely. She closes with promotional plugs and advises the audience to follow the case through ivim.ca and related links. Throughout, Dimitri stresses the overarching themes of political interference in data, fear of reprisal within the public service, and the need for transparency and accountability in health data and governance. He frames the hearing as a pivotal moment for trust in Canadian public institutions and urges support for whistleblowers like himself.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The speaker expressed concern about the body's actions, referencing a previous "attack" on the attorney general. They believe the current legislation is similar and will be struck down by the courts, citing the 1988 Hustler Magazine case where the court ruled public officials are open to scrutiny. The speaker claims the court decided Hustler did not have to disclose satire. They argue the TEC should not arbitrate truth in language and that government regulation of speech should be opposed.

Canada is a place of free expression where individuals and communities can openly and strongly express themselves. Being a democracy means working together, listening to each other, and respecting one another. Moving forward, the most important thing is protecting.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and friendly crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

It is natural to hope, but we must face the truth. We must stand up for freedom of speech and our rights. Censorship and silencing are unconstitutional. The 9th amendment protects our rights during a pandemic. We must have respectful debates and honor free speech. Give me liberty or give me death. Thank you, senator.

A directive is being issued to the federal government to restore freedom of speech and prevent any future government censorship of free speech.

In 2019, the Canadian government removed the crime of spreading false news from the Criminal Code. This raises concerns about trusting a government that takes our money, restricts effective treatments, and fails to investigate the safety of promoted vaccines. Additionally, the parliament we elect allows mainstream media to freely lie without consequences.

In 2019, Bill C39 removed the crime of spreading false news from the Canadian Criminal Code. This change was discovered when comparing the 1954 and 2020 versions of the code. It raises questions about trusting the government, which is accused of stealing money, restricting effective treatments, and not properly investigating promoted vaccines. The parliament, elected to protect citizens, has granted mainstream media outlets like CDC and CTV the freedom to lie without consequences.

Colleges are accused of destroying medical ethics and the patient-doctor relationship. Danielle Smith, running for Premier of Alberta, spoke up for the unvaccinated, calling them persecuted. She suggested dissolving the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta for change. Elect politicians willing to make major changes, not just tinker with healthcare. Support doctors who upheld the Hippocratic oath during the pandemic, as the healthcare system may collapse.

Danielle Smith's new gender and pronoun policy is causing controversy. The Alberta Medical Association released an open letter stating that the decision to seek gender affirming care should be between a person and their doctor. They also mentioned that puberty blocking agents are not irreversible and have benefits. The surgeries targeted by the program were not happening, as bottom surgery is not available in Canada for patients under 18. Concerns were raised about creating a private registry of physicians providing gender affirming care as it is seen as a surveillance measure. The government did not consult with a child and youth advocate, and other medical associations have also opposed the program. The Alberta government sent out a poll asking whether parental consent should be required for abortions for those under 18, which is seen as an attempt to strip rights from young people. This puts trans kids at risk for political gain.

Alberta is facing potential changes to its Bill of Rights that could undermine 52 years of established freedoms. A proposal to introduce "reasonable limits" raises concerns, as the term is vague and subjective. This could restrict freedoms like speech and assembly, depending on what the government deems reasonable. The Bill of Rights, created in 1972, protects essential rights such as freedom of speech and property ownership. The proposed amendments could weaken these protections, allowing for broad government discretion. While some aspects of the proposal may seem appealing, the fine print could render the document ineffective. It's crucial to maintain a Bill of Rights that safeguards Albertans' freedoms without compromise. Raising public awareness about these changes is essential to protect our rights.

Pierre Pauliev announces an emergency in parliament as the Liberals shut down debate on their censorship bill. He says they are censoring debate on the online screening act and that closure is being used to ram the bill through in record time. He asserts that Liberal efforts would give Trudeau’s woke bureaucrats at the CRTC power to control what Canadians see and say online, describing it as creeping totalitarianism referenced by artist Margaret Atwood. Pauliev claims conservatives are the only party fighting back against this censorship bill and that Canadians should have the freedom to decide what they see and say online. He urges listeners to immediately sign his freedom of speech petition, providing a link, and states the goal of giving people back control of their lives to make Canada “the freest country on earth.”

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.

A Trump victory signals change, particularly in addressing censorship. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is pushing a bill that threatens free speech, criminalizing dissent against the government. This authoritarian legislation mirrors previous warnings about the rise of a zero trust model, with measures like mandatory ID linking for social media use. The government is overstepping parental rights, claiming it will care for children instead. Australians must pressure politicians to uphold their rights and reject this bill entirely, rather than seeking amendments. The focus should be on restoring freedoms and ensuring that politicians serve the public, not control it. Support minor parties opposing this bill and advocate for a bill of rights to prevent future authoritarianism. It’s time for Australians to reclaim their country.